After reading Edwards' and McCain's respective speeches (phoned in via satellite) at the Herzliya "war conference" near Tel Aviv several days ago, I honestly can't see much difference between the two with respect to their views on aggression toward Iran.
Senator John Edwards:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/...
...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.
Edwards then goes to to exhibit such a lack of nuance about the realities in Iranian politics as to be worthy of contributing at Free Republic:
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.
I don't know about you, but I am sick of oft-repeated and hackneyed war on terror talking points from right-wing hacks. Can we expect a little more from our 2008 presidential candidates? Can they act more Presidential for a change? More Democratic? More honest? For example, can anyone simply tell the truth? Ahmadinejad is not the final executor of Iranian power and foreign policy. The ayatollahs wield the real power in Iran, not Ahmadinejad, so we need to know what the the ayatollahs are thinking, which we cannot do if we continually rebuff dialogue. Further, the estimates on Iran's nuclear capability vary widely, which is problematic, to say the least. We need better intelligence, particularly from disinterested observers. Should we find that their capabilities are such and such, then here's what I would propose in no uncertain terms.... I mean, stop fucking pandering for votes and money, John. It looks enormously ridiculous in a person who wants to be President of the United States. Personally, you left me in the dust well before you made my wingnut meter tilt:
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.
Now, Edwards may be talking out one side of his mouth here. For example, he may agree that the actual time horizon for Iranian nukes is closer to Negroponte’s estimate, and that in the meantime, a productive dialogue can ensue between the US and the Iranians, thwarting the need for ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, but at this juncture, Edwards sounds alarmingly like George Bush pissing his pants about terrorists! Edwards goes on to play the "Israel can do no wrong" card, and essentially blames Iran for the Lebanon war and then trashes Syria, as well.
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.
Raise the banner of Allah all over Israel? In his defense, it was a conference of wingers, where truth is necessarily unbalanced, but then don't blame me for finding the tone of Edwards' rhetoric to be extremely one-sided, racist, and even hysterical, even for an American presidential candidate who wants the support of Israel and its American lobbyists. Just like McCain, Edwards mentions the possibility of Israeli membership in NATO:
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.
I vaguely remember hearing such chatter previously, but by now it appears to be a prerequisite pledge of the pandering. And like McCain, Edwards ends his speech proper by essentially equating Israel and the United States.
Your challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future.
Rather than equating the identities of the two countries, McCain merely indicated the identity between his support for the two countries. No big difference, really. Edwards finding his reflection in Israel was only slightly more puffed up than McCain's. I'm sure they'll both be happy to trash someone around here for not being a "patriot."
The only place where I detected any just-noticeable difference between Edwards and McCain was in the Q & A session afterwards, where Edwards indicates support for interim steps prior to all out war:
Question and Answer:
Cheryl Fishbein from NY: 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.
With the exception of his answer in the Q & A, Edwards sounded almost identical to John McCain's hawk. Does the fact that Edwards was speaking to a particular "audience" excuse his lop-sided rhetoric? I don't think so. Even if he falls short of McCain's war-mongering in reality, Edwards is a panderer of the first division.
His mentorship toward the American people on these very issues has been pretty dismal, which I think is a real big problem, considering his harsh rhetoric on foreign soil. It gives me serious reservations about Edwards representing me in any capacity.
Read McCain here for comparison:
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/...