He said:

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.

The fear is that Bush will use the designation to launch another preemptive strike in the Middle East.

Do you see anything remotely resembling the preemptive war doctrine in his quote?

[pause-waiting for response]

Didn't think so.

positions on Iran sanctions.  Back in the 2004 Vice Presidential debate, he tried to make Cheney seem soft on Iran:

EDWARDS: The vice president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago.

North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.

It's a mistake. We should not only not lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions.

Edwards didn't oppose the Designation until it became Politically expedient for him to do so.

It applies to almost all of his positions.

to vote against the resolution.  I trust that John will do what's right, but we all must be mindful that politicians sometimes present things that work to their advantage.  Nobody's pure, so let's not be naive. He may not have had time to think it through; so what.  Now he has and he's right.

and therefore slanted your argument while depriving the objective person a chance to make up his/her own mind.  Why?

Clearly, your slant would interpret his explanation for your purposes, yet you were not even fair enough in your presentation to include it.

Here is the total passage:

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.

http://www.talkleft.com/...

How do you know that such steps refer to IRG and not  the aim to stamp out state-sponsored terrorism?

How do you know that he did not mean that the action on the IRG designation was just rhetorical and would not lead the results he had mentioned?

These are more consistent interpretations than yours, in my opinion.

with regard to Iran (culling this from his article in Foreign Affairs and other remarks made in different speeches, including his website here: http://www.johnedwards.com/... ), when Edwards says "meaningful" in this context he means the engagement of Russia and China, as practically unilateral steps - including sanctions - entrench the hardliners on both sides of this conflict. Even in the brief excerpt you gave there is a reference to working "...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."

From reading his speeches and articles, it is apparent to me that Edwards truly believes in a "concert of nations" approach. This is not what K-L does - it leaves the question of engaging in multilateralism up to an administration that has traditionally not been able - or in some cases willing - to go there.

Actually it's more than just designating the ING as terroists, although I think that could be used as a prelude to war.  I think he may not have thought that thru, which some will criticize, but I'm not certain it's a change of mind, or position, but a clarification of the facts on the ground.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S.  As president,

Future tense ^, which he had no control over.

Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Past tense ^, which he had no control over.

"rhetoric" is NOT going to lead to "results" -- but diplomacy -- as Edwards goes on to emphasize in the next two sentences -- will.

You are basing an allegation that Edwards supported Kyl-Lieberman and/or a preemptive military attack on Iran two months ago on your own assumptions about an awkward phrase (a phrase you didn't understand), and your own assumptions that are contradicted by the rest of the very same text.

As far as why edit it? The text was out of date: "Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will soon be deemed...." -- the vote had already happened. the web sites are all updated all the time.