John Edwards Pledges Allegiance to Israel in Herzilya,
Ready to Launch the Israeli War on Iran

AAI, February 2, 2007, Vol 8# 4

A Disappointing Stump Speech…

In a shockingly bellicose speech to a conference in Herzliya, Israel, last week, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards checked every pandering box: he threatened war on Iran ("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."), placed sole responsibility for the Palestinian-Israeli stalemate on the Palestinians ("Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up their land in order to advance peace…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."), and spoke of his "helicopter trip over the Lebanese border" during a visit to Israel last summer. Back home, Edwards tells anti-war voters in Iowa that he is against the war in Iraq and supports increased diplomacy in the region. Where is the logic between these conflicting positions? This is electoral politics—there is no logic.

Fool Me Once Shame on You…

The preliminary results of a State Department report on Israel's use of US-made cluster bombs during this summer's war in Lebanon indicate that Israel may have violated the Arms Export Control Act by using the munitions in civilian neighborhoods. Since the war's end in August, remnants from the bombs have caused 30 civilian deaths and 180 injuries. The UN's Jan Egeland, who was critical of both Israel and Hezbollah during the war, said, "What's shocking—and I would say to me completely immoral—is that 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution." In 1982, President Ronald Reagan suspended cluster bombs sales to Israel because of their use in civilian populations during the country's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Twenty-five years later, why are we still having this conversation?

I'll Take Those in a Size 7…

Watch out John McCain, there's a new maverick in town. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) challenged fellow legislators to put aside partisanship and take a stand on Iraq. "The Congress has stood in the shadow of this issue, Iraq, for four years," he said. "As [Senator John] Warner noted. . .we have a constitutional responsibility as well as a moral responsibility to this country, to the young men and women we ask to go fight and die and their families. . . . This is not a defeatist resolution, this is not a cut-and-run resolution, we're not talking about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam. Sure it's tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes."

Welcome to Our World…

The attacks on the religious affiliation of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his family continue. Fox News host Jim Gibson cast doubt on CNN reports debunking rumors that the school Obama attended as a youth in Indonesia taught extremism. "Yeah, cause they got a reporter in Indonesia, probably went to the very madrassa, now works for CNN. But that reporter went out there, and what did they see when they went to the madrassa where Barack Obama went to school?...They probably didn’t show them in their little lessons where they’re bobbing their heads and memorizing the Koran." National Public Radio's Juan Williams chimed in saying, "He comes from a father who was a Muslim. I mean, I think that given we're at war with Muslim extremists, that presents a problem." First, madrassa means school in Arabic. So, we all went to madrassas. Second, we have serious problems facing our country. Can we PLEASE talk about solutions and stop creating scandals that do not exist?

News from the Race for '08…

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has signed Arab American Mo El-Leithee as a senior spokesperson for her campaign. Campaign vet Elleithee has worked for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, current VA Governor Tim Kaine, and former Senator Bob Graham's presidential bid, among others…Former NYC mayor and Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Guiliani has tapped two of the Hill's most anti-Arab legislators—Congressmen Peter King (R-NY) and Vito Fossella (R-NY)—to head his campaign's outreach efforts on the hill…Edwards was not the only presidential hopeful to address the Herzliya conference. He was joined by Republicans Senator John McCain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former MA Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was the only candidate to address the audience in person.

Arab American Institute 1600 K Street, NW Suite 601 Washington, DC 20006 www.aaiusa.org

2007: Decisive Year for the Israeli-Neocon Attack Iran Plan   By Kurt Nimmo

Global Research, January 2, 2007

kurtnimmo.com - 2007-01-01

As if to kick off the New Year, and usher in the required political mindset, the Israelis are switching the attack Iran mantra into hyperdrive. “As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors,” declares Israeli Brigadier General Oded Tira. “We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.” It is refreshing, in a sadistic sort of way, so little translation is required here. First, Tira, a former IDF chief artillery officer, has cut to the chase, not belaboring us with the sort of platitudes uttered by a Binyamin Netanyahu or Ehud Olmert. In order for Israel to exist, so the reasoning goes, it is required for the United States to attack Iran and kick off world war three, or as the neocons call it, world war four. Of course, by “existence” the former IDF officer means Israel must continue the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, continue killing and torturing the Palestinian people, and mucking around in the domestic affairs of its Arab neighbors. I believe the second point, however, is not necessary, as in many ways the Democrats are more pro-Israel than the Republicans, if that is possible. Killing large numbers of Muslims—650,000, by conservative estimates, in Iraq alone as the year ends—is indeed a bipartisan affair. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while dissing the neocon occupation of Iraq in the name of political expediency, have called for invading Iran. But the likely Democrat presidential selectee, John Edwards, is even more pro-Zionist than either Clinton or Obama. “Edwards has been one of Israel’s strongest and most consistent supporters in the U.S. Senate, and as President, he will work in the tradition of Democratic Presidents like Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton to strengthen the special relationship between the United States and Israel and the Jewish people. He will work tirelessly to strengthen America’s economic and political ties with Israel—the region’s only democracy—and will ensure that America will do what is necessary to ensure Israel’s security, including through economic and military aid,” declares the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, billed as a “non-partisan” organization established “to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance,” that is to say disseminate propaganda through the Jewish Virtual Library, a sprawling online encyclopedia. Specifically, in regard to Iran, Edwards said during a vice presidential selectee “debate” in 2004: “It’s important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people.” Not the American people, mind you, but the Israeli people. As president, Edwards will carry Israel’s torch forward, making certain to ignite Iran—not that he will be required to do such, as the departing neocons will do it for him, possibly sooner before later. Mr. Tira offers a few choice suggestions on how best to start world war four and ultimately destroy America. “For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.” In addition to the lucrative Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and billions in oil and gas revenue, the Israelis are interested in using Azerbaijan as a staging platform for a future attack, as Tira notes. According to Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, the Israeli Mossad is busily at work unleashing covert intelligence cells inside Iran, “supplemented with specially trained commandos entering Iran disguised as local villagers,” according to Hersh. In an interview published by Aljazeera, Ritter claims “the Mossad is working with the Azeri population” to undermine Iranian sovereignty. The strategic importance of the Israeli-Azeri alliance should not be underestimated—Azeris are the second largest ethnic group within Iran. “Human Rights Watch reports that between 15 and 20 million Azeris reside in Iran, and that they ‘inhabit a strategically important, prosperous area in northwest Iran, relatively close to Tehran,’” notes Nick Grace C. According to Glenn Hauser, who monitors short wave radio, the Voice of Southern Azerbaijan is an Israeli operation. Wolfgang Bueschel, another short wave monitor, told “IPS in October 1992 from Baku, that the Israelian (sic) secret service specialist David Kimche and… Richard Secord, who was involved in the Iran-Contra-Affair, visited Azerbaijan, (and) presented a delegation of more Israelian secret service personnel. Mr. Culuzadeh took part on a return visit to Israel, (and) lead a delegation of Azerbaijan/Uzbek/Kazakh secret services.” But simply stirring up the Azeri population will not be enough, not without an aroused United States, once again willing to lend its once powerful, now increasingly impotent, military to the Israeli cause. “Based on the urgency of General Tira’s extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America. By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics,” writes Michael Carmichael. In short, the Israelis are not prepared to wait for the glacial turn of American politics, especially now that the decidedly pro-Israel Democrats are taking over the reigns of Congress. Israel has demanded the United States invade Iran for a couple years now and is obviously growing increasingly agitated with the slow move in that direction, a move nonetheless promised before Bush leaves office. Even though Mr. Carmichael believes the neocon plan for attacking Iran is in decline, the principals remain faithful to the cause. For instance, Binyamin Netyanahu. In an op-ed published in the neocon-infested Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu declares “Iran can still be stopped,” and the Israelis “must make it clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and the entire world, not only Israel.” In other words, in regard to the in-coming Democrat Congress, there must be “an intense, international, public relations front focusing first and foremost on the US…. The time has come for the Israeli government to put our existence in its utmost priority. If it does so, I guarantee that both my party members and myself will give our full support in preparation against the Iranian threat, as we did in the Lebanon war,” never mind that “war” went badly for Israel, as it ran smack up against the reality of a well-armed and trained Hezbollah. Come the invasion of Iran, Hezbollah’s resistance will look like an informal dress rehearsal by way of comparison. As it now appears, 2007 will be the decisive year for Israel’s long-planned attack on Iran, thanks to a never-ending stream of propaganda and the easily exploitable ignorance of the American people. “The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons,” writes Scott Ritter. “If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.” In addition to AIPAC influence and the overtime work of the neocons, the latter with a virtual electronic forum thanks to the corporate media and the former now diligently canvassing Congress for easily won support, there is Bush’s “legacy” to consider. “Bush can’t stop now,” writes Scott Horton. “He figures his legacy as a disgrace to America and all mankind can be postponed or perhaps somehow even reversed if he could have just a little more time. Time for what? Could it be that Bush truly intends to carry out the full neoconservative program in the Middle East, complete with more regime changes? …. Perhaps the question is whether Israel will start a war in Syria as a back door to the expansion of America’s war to Iran, or will the U.S. simply fake another Gulf of Tonkin provocation in the Indian Ocean and hit Syria second?…. Robert Parry reports that Bush, Blair and Olmert are already planning for more war in the new year. The Iranians seem to have waited too long to get their act together. If they had withdrawn from the NPT and started harvesting plutonium the way North Korea did, instead of throwing their books wide open to the UN and trying to go along, they’d have a nuclear deterrent by now.” Deterrent or not, Iran will not come out on the short end of any attack, although doubtless plenty of Iranians will die. It will be the United States and Israel that will ultimately suffer, or rather the people of these countries. If Israel manages to goad the United States into an attack, the economic consequences alone will put an end to the demented aspirations of Pax Americana, and this will spell disaster for Israel as well, as it cannot possibly hope to exist in current form if its nanny funds, to the tune of billions each year, suddenly evaporate.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Kurt Nimmo, kurtnimmo.com, 2007 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4311

© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005

MotherJones.com / News / MoJo Blog

Iran Becomes Campaign Issue, Edwards First to State Position
02/03/07 9:00 AM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/02/3439_iran_becomes_ca.html

- Jonathan Stein

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Edwards:
'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert

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

Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007

(Update below: Over one week later, in an interview, Edwards said that he thought attacking Iran "would have very bad consequences")

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "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."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. 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."

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

Edwards added, "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."

Full transcript of Edwards' Herzliya speech # Senator John Edwards:

It’s a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this conference which has played an important role in bringing people together from all walks of life. The Herzliya Conference is a great forum for what is happening in Israel.

I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.

Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.

We also need to remember the three soldiers and their families for whom it is well past time for their return home. They are a symbol of the extraordinary challenges facing Israel and Middle East. One source of strength is the bond between Israel and the United States, which is a bond that will never be broken. For more than half a century both countries have benefited from this alliance. We share common values such as freedom and democracy. I was in Israel in 2001 and I’ll never forget just as I was ending my visit, a Hamas suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt blew up the Sbarro pizzeria. It made an impact on me to see the extraordinary sacrifice made by the Israeli people everyday. They continue to make sacrifices to ensure your security and achieve peace. I saw firsthand the threats you face every day. I feel that I understand on a very personal level those threats. The challenges in your own backyard – rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel.

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. 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. This was a mistake. 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.

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

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 war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel’s border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.

I cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap. Syria needs to go long way to prove it is ready for peace. It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. 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. While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel.

Outside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement. The US and Europe need to ensure that money going to the Palestinians does not go to lining the pockets of terrorists. 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.

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.

Your challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you.

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: 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.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

# Edwards: 'Very bad consequences' On February 2, Ezra Klein interviewed Edwards in Washington DC, for the American Prospect. Edwards explained that he wasn't really advocating a military strike on Iran and that he thought an attack "would have very bad consequences."

Edwards added that he thought the Bush Administration was wrong for not "negotiating directly" with Iran, stressing a need for diplomacy. He suggested that an "economic package" should be offered to Iran as a carrot to ward off "serious economic sanctions" representing the "stick."

However, Edwards made it clear that he thought no American president should ever limit their options, military or otherwise. In some ways, Edwards' words echo statements made by former President Bill Clinton backing the 2002 congressional resolution which gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, a power Clinton thought a president should have even if he wasn't certain that war was the correct choice at the time.

"So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?" Klein asked Edwards.

"I think would have very bad consequences," Edwards responded.

Klein asked, "So when you said that all options are on the table?"

"It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," said Edwards.

The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=48049&d=9&m=7&y=2004 

Friday, 9, July, 2004 (21, Jumada al-Ula, 1425)

John Edwards — Bulldog Grip on ‘Underdog’ Israeli Nation

Sarah Whalen, Arab News

John Edwards would have liked to be US President in 2004. But he’s an extraordinarily talented plaintiffs’ trial lawyer. If he can’t win, he’ll settle.

Being John Kerry’s vice president would be enough. For now.

Why should Muslims care?

Because Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, voted for giving President Bush authority to use military force in Iraq, and is obsessed with militarily defending Israel through war in the Middle East.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers defend underdogs to the death, and Edwards sees Israel, a nuclear-armed munitions factory, as the underdog. And Edwards will fight to the death for Israel.

And like all great trial lawyers, he doesn’t have to know a whole heck of a lot about any issues. He’s a bulldog. He just has to know what his goal is, get a good grip with his jaws, and not let go.

On the Middle East “situation,” Edwards avers there are “no easy answers here,” but in fact, that isn’t true. Edwards has an easy answer.

The US should be a “strong supporter of Israel.” No why, no because, no indication that he understands any of the issues. Just get that bulldog grip and not let go.

Edwards the bulldog is tenacious alright. But how smart is he?

On US Senate’s elite Intelligence Committee, Edwards comments on the 9/11 attacks often painfully belabored the obvious: “If we can predict where, when and how attacks will occur, we can stop them before they happen.” What? No “who?”

And during his nomination run, Edwards’ Middle East remarks turned decidedly odd. Edwards called for the United States to lead an “international effort” against Iraq at all costs, even if the UN Security Council was somehow “prevented” from supporting it. That “prevention” here would mean the exercise of voting rights of the actual Security Council Members does not seem to have even crossed Edwards’ mind.

And why should it? It takes every muscle just to hold that grip.

“Hussein’s got to be gone,” Edwards barked before the war, even though he acknowledged that Iraq had made no “direct provocation” against any state in over a decade.

“Osama Bin Laden is no criminal mastermind,” Edwards scoffed. Bin Laden is, rather, “a common thug who was able to thrive in an environment of political despotism, religious extremism, and economic instability.”

In Edwards’ bulldog eyes, Bin Laden is just a simple crook.

To Edwards, Israel is “our vital ally” to which Iraq under Saddam Hussein “pose[d] a mortal threat.”

But toppling Saddam was not enough for Edwards. His website announces: “Senator John Edwards believes that this is not the time to send mixed messages about the special relationship between America and Israel.”

When interviewer Tim Russert asked whether, as president, Edwards would urge Ariel Sharon “to stop building settlements on the West Bank,” Edwards responded: “I don’t think our responsibility is to make demands on a sovereign nation, particularly an old, deep, passionate ally like Israel.”

He also declared that Israel “made the right decision to reject” the UN’s proposal on Jenin. Edwards added that Israelis rightfully escalated violence against Palestinians because “I think that the very existence of Israel is being threatened.”

Why tell Israel “to stop the military incursion,” Edwards continued, “when we [the US] were attacked [9/11] we went half a world away to go after

the people who were responsible for it?”

In his October, 2002 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Edwards twice pronounced things in the Middle East would change “when we’re [i.e., the US] engaged on the ground in Israel: “It’s also important for us to send a clear signal to the Arab world that we care about what’s happening in Israel, that we’re willing to have people on the ground over extended period of time to do what needs to be done to ease tension and hopefully ultimately result in peace.”

US troops “on the ground” in the Middle East for ‘Israel?’” Edwards’ admission that the Iraq war was all about Israel is an idea worth watching, as Edwards’ begins his odyssey to power.

(Sarah Whalen is an expert in Islamic law and taught law at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, Louisiana.)

whalen@sprynet.com

http://www.atimes.com 

Front Page

COMMENT John Edwards, the smiling hawk By Stephen Zunes

(Posted with permission from Foreign Policy In Focus)

US Senator John Kerry's decision to select a vice-presidential running mate who shares his militaristic foreign-policy agenda has once again demonstrated the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's willingness to take the party's activist core, which overwhelmingly supports human rights and international law, for granted.

While bringing Senator John Edwards - a bright and charismatic Southern populist - on to the Democratic ticket might attract some voters, it will likely serve to alienate further the majority of Democrats already disappointed in Kerry's strident support for President George W Bush's illegal and disastrous decision to invade Iraq as well as a number of other questionable foreign and military policies of the current administration.

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat", and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction". Claiming that US national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.

Two weeks later, Edwards joined Kerry in authorizing Bush to attack Iraq whenever and under whatever circumstances he chose. When the invasion went forward - despite Iraq's belated cooperation with United Nations inspectors and the absence of any signs of recent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) activity - Edwards joined Kerry in supporting a Republican-sponsored resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president ... in the conflict against Iraq". In the same resolution - despite the consensus of the international legal community that such an offensive war is illegal - Edwards joined Kerry in insisting that the war was "lawful". Subsequently, despite growing public disenchantment with the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Edwards has also joined Kerry in supporting the ongoing US occupation.

No WMD, no problem In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq". Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."

When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world". In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.

Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.

The invasion of Iraq is widely seen as the incumbent administration's biggest blunder and is therefore the place where Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are most vulnerable politically. Nominating a ticket consisting of two senators who also supported the invasion of Iraq therefore robs the Democrats of what could have been their most powerful issue of the campaign. Indeed, in his Washington Post article, Edwards called for his Democratic colleagues to ensure "that politics plays no part in the debate about Iraq".

Beyond Iraq Unfortunately, Edwards' militarism is not restricted to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

He has joined Kerry in supporting dramatic increases in military spending, most of which have nothing to do with the "war on terrorism".

He has also joined Kerry in his strident support for the occupation policies of the rightist Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This has included supporting Sharon's plans for the unilateral Israeli annexation of large swaths of the occupied West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements from which the UN Security Council has called for an Israeli withdrawal. Edwards also joined Kerry in criticizing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for raising questions regarding the legality of Israel's separation wall in the occupied West Bank, recently declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in a 14-1 decision.

The incipient Democratic nominees also appear to have little concern regarding human rights: for example, in the face of widespread criticism by reputable human-rights organizations over Israel's systematic assaults against civilian targets in its April 2002 offensive in the West Bank, Edwards joined Kerry in 1) defending the Israeli actions, claiming that they were "necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas"; 2) opposing United Nations efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces; and 3) criticizing Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent incursions into Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

In summary: Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in order to persuade the US public to support the takeover of that oil-rich country. Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, insist on maintaining the US occupation in the face of a growing and increasingly radical armed opposition. Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, believe that while the use of sanctions and military force are appropriate means of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions against governments they don't like, it's acceptable for allied governments that violate UN Security Council resolutions to be rewarded with billions of dollars' worth of unconditional military and economic aid. Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, reject the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to end the repression and violence in favor of Sharon's policy of occupation, colonization and repression. Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, have wasted tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars to fill the coffers of military contractors in the face of severe cutbacks in education, health care, housing, public transportation and other important programs. Kerry and Edwards, like Bush and Cheney, are willing to ignore the concerns of the human-rights community in order to support repressive governments they deem to be strategic allies of the United States.

Kerry's choice for his running mate contrasts dramatically with that of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who chose Peter Camejo, a forceful and articulate advocate of human rights and international law widely respected among peace and justice activists. In the months leading up to the US war against Iraq, during the invasion and subsequently, Camejo found himself in the forefront of the anti-war movement, speaking at rallies and appearing in the media to denounce what virtually the entire international community saw as an act of aggression. Camejo has been a long-standing advocate of redirecting federal budget priorities away from excessive military spending toward human needs and has been an outspoken opponent of US support for the Israeli occupation and other human-rights violations.

Given the nature of the presidential election process and the Democrats' superior record to that of the Republicans on the environment, civil liberties and a number of other issues, most supporters of peace and international law will probably vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket anyway. It would be naive, however, to take such voters for granted.

It did not have to be this way. There are quite a few Democratic leaders who, unlike Kerry, do support more ethical and rational foreign policies. If the Democrats were smart, they would have tried to balance the ticket by bringing in someone who identifies with the party's liberal majority instead of yet another Senate hawk trying to be some kind of "Bush Lite".

If the Democrats want Americans' votes in November, they need to convince them that, in this time of unprecedented international threats and pressing domestic needs, they will pursue a more responsible foreign and military policy than that of the Republican incumbents. Choosing John Edwards as the party's vice-presidential nominee has only made that job more difficult.

Stephen Zunes, formerly a Democratic Party activist in his native North Carolina, is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. Posted with permission from FPIF.

Revised: September 23, 2008 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: September 23, 2008  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com