John Edwards on C-Span speaking to AIPAC

[Leilani]

praising Ariel Sharon & emphasizing the threat that Iran poses to U.S. & Israel.

So far his speech is more hawkish that the worst neo-cons & he's getting standing ovations!

[liberalpragmatist]

1. Well, what do you expect at an AIPAC Convention?

I like John Edwards. But I have no illusions that any US politician is going to be even-handed about this conflict in their rhetoric. All one can hope is that when actually in office, they'll act more pragmatically, as Clinton did.

[Tom Joad]

2. is he in a kneeling position?

[DemDogs]

21. He had some new ideas actually

which he delivered standing up. He said the US should work for a greater Israel-NATO relationship, which is a terrific idea that could bring them eventually into that security circle.

And, really, if "Tom Joad" is supposed to represent a point of view, don't you think it might be a good idea to stop kicking the one likely nominee who represents your point of view.

[Tom Joad]

30. It would help if he weren't supporting Israeli occupation and militarism

What about security for others outside NATO? Iraq has no security from the United States and Britain. Consequently, the people of Iraq suffer greatly. We the people of the world must extend our solidarity to all, not just those within our borders. We must oppose militarism abroad, especially that paid for with our tax dollars.

To make a long story short, I think the greatest threat to world peace is my own country. It is very tragic, but true. Israel is also a very violent nation, founded on colonialism and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people. Israel is destroying Palestinian homes even as Edwards was speaking. It is setting up a system of apartheid rule in tiny Bantustans.


"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." Martin Luther King, Jr.

King knew we could not really fight poverty here while we were supporting militarism abroad. I would wish Edwards would learn this.

[DemDogs]

57. Misleading subject line -- he is not supporting either - nt

[Tom Joad]

61. He is opposed to the occupation? Opposes funding aid to

the Israeli military?

[Jim Sagle]

75. No, but you're in a sucking position.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

83. No, Mr. Fisk, your powers of observation are the same as they ever were.

[gumby]

3. Edwards, along with any other Dem hopeful

who voted FOR the WAR is just full of SHIT.

Sorry, no way around it.

[DemDogs]

24. Grow up (n/t)

[donsu]

34. I agree with #3's post

nt

[Colorado Blue]

71. Amen. nt

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. So should he be praising theWhabbai Saud Arabians?

Or perhaps prasing Ghaddafi? Or exhorting the human rights record of Yemen? What's your point? If you haven't noticed, Israel is our only all in the Middle East. :eyes:

Why so many Duers hate Israel confounds me. Try living in Saudia Arabia for a year or two, see if you can get a job, drive, or go out in public wearing anything other than a burka and get back to me.

[Leilani]

5. I don't hate Israel, I'm a supporter of a free Israel

but by pimping for another war, I'm wondering if Edwards will send his kid this time.

He voted for the Iraq War, called it a mistake, & is now cheerleading against Iran.

And if that's what it takes to get elected Prez, then I want no part of politics.

And no, I never lived in Saudi, but my brother went to Iraq for one year. Do you have anyone who went to fight in the Mideast based on bogus lies?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Do you not see a difference between Iran and Iraq?

One was "claimed" to have WMD. The other is claiming to "get them" (sometimes).

One claimed...well nothing. The other claims the desire to wipe another sovereign nation off the face of the earth.

See any difference? One 'build-up' was on faulty info. One is based on the countries own bullshit rhetoric.

Here is the real difference...the Iraq war was blamed on Israel because the war would "protect them (Israel)," despite the leader having no method of attacking. This 'build-up' has been nothing more than 'saber-rattling' on both sides, but perfect cover to set Israel up as the 'fall guy.' See, it is "win-win." The 'far-right" can claim we are doing this for G-d; the 'far-left' can blame Israel again for the death of the US military and assert they (Israel) actually control the US government; all the while, the real culprits, the oil-mongers go unscathed!

BTW...Edwards is not "pimping" or "cheerleading" for another war. He is stating his opinion based on multiple sources, as opposed to a single source (for the Iraq debacle).

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Maybe he shouldn't be praising any of them?

AIPAC is not Israel. AIPAC is a political organization, who oh by the way is caught up in a spying scandal, but don't let that bother any politican.

In the meantime, BushCo has no problem being friends with the Saudis, the UAE or many of these other groups that you seem to be against.

[karynnj]

13. I am surprised that the spying scandal hasn't led to anyone distancing

themself. I got the AIPAC solicitation several months ago and wish I would have kept it. Well, at least I didn't contribute. (I have no idea how I got on their list, but I am Jewish.)

[donsu]

35. maybe it's the way they treat palestine

you think?

[High Plains]

44. You forgot Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and the UAE

Being critical of US politicians kowtowing to AIPAC and Israel does not imply that one must support other neighborhood troublemakers, either.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. But I thought Edwards has changed

since he denounced his Iraq vote! :sarcasm:

[Leilani]

7. Yeah, he changed!

He's more ambitious than he used to be.

[DemDogs]

22. Listen to the speech -- or read the summary below before criticizing

When you post a silly thing like this, think for a second about how the Freepers will view it. You aren't really saying anything that moves the conversation. All you are doing is spitting on one of our own. And we're not loving that. But they are. Gee, thanks.

[donsu]

36. who cares what the freepers think?

nt

[Leilani]

39. Speak for yourself

What I posted was not silly...

John Edwards is running for Prez, & what he says matters, especially on the situation in the Mideast.

And I don't give a flying freep what they think.

Why are you so worried about it?

[DemDogs]

52. Just don't like the firing squad to line up in a circle (n/t)

[4freethinking]

68. I hear yah

We should not criticize anything that involves Israel and be just like the Freepers and not think or question anything that involves Israel. Jump off the cliff do a nose dive take it on faith that we're not going to splatter on the rocks of financial, economic, and military ruin. We can show the Freepers we can get in line better than they can when it comes to jumping off a cliff for Israel.

[Hardrada]

8. It is so curious how we condemn and ridicule

those who say "Why do you hate America?" when we offer some criticism of our country
but it's just fine to say "Why do you hate Israel?" when we have some well-meant critiques?

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. yes that is confounding isn't it.

but I'm afraid the answer to your question is more simple than what many people want to face; racism, pure simple anti-Arab racism

[DemDogs]

23. Silly man

You can't equate denunciation of terrorism, practiced by Hamas Arabs, with anti-Arab racism. It is the act, not the face of the actor.
The implication, which I don't think you meant to leave, that he might be racist, is without any basis whatsoever. It would be great if you would clear that up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. well, I do not mean racism as a personal emotion. I'll give people the

benefit of the doubt if they say they are not.

But racism, anti-Arab racism in particular, as an institution is the only way to justify the silence across the political spectrum of the U.S. against the cruel and brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories. This lack of critique would not be the case if it involved any other democratic ally of the United States or of course if it was the behavior of the United States itself. Nor would this lack of critique be acceptable if the repression was not against a despised and demonized people.


The refusal of the Israeli government to negotiate in good faith for a viable Palestinian state and the military destruction of the institutions of the Palestinian Authority could have only strengthened the hand of Hamas. What does one think would happen?

links:

The Myth of the Generous Offer by By Seth Ackerman of FAIR:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113


Amnesty Internationl:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=isrlpa


American Friends Service Committee:

http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/default.htm

[Colorado Blue]

72. You're conveniently telling only one side of the story. The

OTHER side of the story is that there's been violence against Jews in the Middle East since long before Israel was a state, that the entire Middle Eastern Jewish population was expelled or had to flee - most to live in refugee camps in the fledgling state of Israel - that there have been several existential wars aimed at the destruction of Israel and endless acts of terror.

Meanwhile you are ALSO ignoring the fact that Gaza is no longer occupied and plans for further withdrawals from the West Bank are underway, depending on the outcome of the Israeli elections.

The saddest fact of all: terrorist violence against Israel rose steeply AFTER the Oslo accords were signed.

Finally - Hamas, the newly elected representatives of the Palestinians - are committed to Israel's destruction.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. But that's what you always do, CB...

I'm taking it that it's only okay when you do it?

Violet...

[Andromeda]

79. I thought it was only okay if you did it.

[karynnj]

12. Is there a link to the speech or any details of what he said?

Sharon is an incredibly complex character. If he would have died five years ago, I assume there would be few Democrats who would really mourn his passing. Even in Israel he was considered quilty of allowing the masacure of Palistinians at the 2 refugee camps in Lebanon and he was a key proponent of building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Those settlements have made peace far more difficult and have distorted the character of Israel itself. (For us, there should be a lesson here - as fear from having been repeatedly attacked led to those policies.)

But Sharon, when he became incapacitated, was moving in the right direction. His demise and the elction of Hamas take away the hope that had peaked out with the election of Abbas and Sharon's moves. It's also very common to dwell on the good when someone dies (which at some real level Sharon has).

It would be nice to get specific things that Edwards says before attacking him.

[1932]

16. Link

http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=edwards&SortBy=date

i's at the top.

[karynnj]

17. Thanks, I'll read it

I hope it's better than described here.

[DemDogs]

19. What Edwards really said:

After talk about his wife and a joke about his son:
1. Sharon was a giant of Israel's history who made an historic decision to vacate Gaza was brave and bold.
2. America committed to Israel's security.
3. Israel is facing extraordinary threats today, particularly Iran's nuclear program. He said the Iranian pledge to wipe Israel off the map and their statements that the holocaust is a myth need to be taken seriously. He said we need to tell Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions or suffer the consequences, including meaningful sanctions. This is a strategic imperative for all of us worldwide.
4. Threat of Hamas, with its congenital commitment to the eradication of Israel and the "darkest anti-Semitic claims" is real. Israel has the obligation to defend itself against this threat and we have to be there with them. Any US cooperation with Hamas has to be based on their renunciation of this posture. They have to recognize Isarael's right to exist and end support of terrorism or there should be no US financial support. Humanitarian assistance is vital, support for governmental activities is dependent on this change in position.
5. An idea I have not heard: We need to be exploring ways to upgrade Israel's relationship with NATO. This could someday mean membership in the greatest security alliance in the world. US should lead this effort.

He mentions his CFR Report on US-Russia relationship. (I think that is also on C-Span)
He closes talks about moral leadership void in America, in our domestic and foreign policy.

PLEASE TELL ME WHICH OF THESE THINGS YOU DISAGREE WITH? IF YOUR POSITION IS DIFFERENT, TELL ME WHICH POTENTIAL CANDIDATE REFLECTS YOUR POSITION.

[karynnj]

26. Thank you this sounds way more like the JE of 2004 than the

contentless comments suggest. Also, I was in NO WAY criticizing JE, I was demanding information because others were blasting him based on rants. JE is not my choice for 2008, but what they were describing was FAR out of line with anything I ever saw him say.

I was NOT objecting to anything (and from your review) his comments seem fine, as I would have expected. My critisism was to the knee jerk comments. I do think that for appearances sake, Aipac has problems.

I had seen things last month about enhancing Israel's relationship with NATO, but from the WP, it seemed that this is being talked of more in Europe. I have mixed feeling on it - it may distort NATO in ways that need to be considered, espeially as some are considering expanding to Arab Mediterranean countries.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Pulling Israel into NATO I think would be a bad idea

There are agreements already in place with the U.S. to guarantee Israel's security. I think pulling Israel into NATO would be seen in the Middle East as a political statement, and while that may be the political statement Israel would like seen made, I don't think it is the right one to make. It's like the business of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital rather than Tel Aviv. What's the difference if Israel is being recognized either way? Well, there's a difference to those in the region. Same thing with how Israel is defended.

The basic outline of the U.S. stand regarding Israel is unlikely to change under any President elected in 2008,but how that stance is interpreted can vary dramatically based on the leanings of who takes office. Regarding Iran, of course Israel has good reason to worry about Iran. The question is how best to contain nuclear proliferation in that region. Has Edwards called for direct talks between the U.S. and Iran yet? That would be a significant stand because it is a controversial stand and meaningful stand. Most American politicians would rather go along with the saber rattling at Iran while saying we can't even talk with Iran's leaders.

[DemDogs]

55. Shared security obligations with Europe is one good reason - nt

[IndianaGreen]

59. Did GAWD transplant Israel into Europe? Israel joins the Crusaders!

How idiotic this NATO business is, NATO should have been abolished years ago!

[Roland99]

28. Hamas is not a threat to Israel. And neither is Iran.

Israel is more than capable of caring for itself.


Edwards is a sales slime. That VP debate he came off like a used car salesman and I lost a lot of respect for him after that.


He's a has-been. Time to move on.

[karynnj]

31. Hamas has backed bombings in Israel for years

Did you prefer Cheney in the debate????

[Roland99]

37. And Israel has bombed and shot and rocketed Palestinians for years

your point?


And, yeah, I just loved me some of that DICK. :eyes:

[karynnj]

45. My point:

Hamas is a threat to Israel. You counter with the fact that Israel has attacked the Palestinians which is true, but it doesn't mean that Hamas is not a threat to Israel.

[Roland99]

48. Not a threat in the sense you were implying (they could destroy Israel)

Israel can handle Hamas on their own. They don't need us or anyone else.

[DemDogs]

54. There is not a single thing in that post that is accurate

Hamas is a threat, and you are blind and deaf if you think otherwise.

Edwards is not "sales slime" whatever that is. Our most sincere advocate.

He was spectacular in the VP debates and had Cheney wringing his hands from the first minute. First responses by the network monitored audiences were all heavily in Edwards' favor. MSM dampened that in next days but apparently no one else thought he came off like a used car salesman.

No has-been is the only person talking about what really ails us.

You sound like you think the guy can beat whoever you are for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. How does this differ from what any other elected Democrat is saying?

:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. unfortunately, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, John Dingell,

John Conyers and about a dozen other Democrats in the House and about half a dozen Republicans in the House it doesn't differ very much.

Link for ratings by Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003538M

[karynnj]

18. I can't find a list of the votes they base this on

[MH1]

29. I can't even get to the linked website.

It would be nice if Project Vote Smart would require and post the criteria that an organization used rather than just some rating that could be based on anything.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. you might try back later. I remember accessing their website a few

weeks ago. But, I cannot seem to get to it right now either.

[DemDogs]

20. Praises Sharon for withdrawing from Gaza

And do you think Iran is not a threat? Are you paying any attention?

[Tom Joad]

32. And you think Israel is not a threat to the region?

Are you paying attention?

It has the third or fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world. If we want to keep nukes out of the region, we should be consistent.

Right now, and at least for years to come, Iran will not have nukes.

[DemDogs]

56. Write that on your calendar -- and cross your fingers

Israel is not a threat not because they don't have the arsenal. They do have the arsenal. What they don't have is a death-wish.

[Tom Joad]

63. Any state with nukes is a threat to peace. eom

[Coastie for Truth]

66. Especially

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (only country to ever use them) - and they were developed at the University of California at Berkeley's Lawrence Livermore Lab.

I would say that the the UK is a threat to peace, and France, and Russia, and India (and they have the PhD's) and Pakistan, and the PRC (they also have the PhD's), and Iran, and North Korea, are also threats to peace.

[Tom Joad]

67. I agree with Coastie. Not often we agree, but we do here.

I do NOT want Iran to have nukes, either. but i think the threat of military force will make matters worse.

Better to lead by example, like leading the world in getting rid of these monstrosities. What happened to Iraq is *encouraged* Iran to consider getting nukes.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. According to Forward magazine on-line

Warner, Bayh and (yuck) Gingrich also spoke at the AIPAC conference.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7434

I haven't seen anything about what they had to say, but it would be interesting to compare.

[donsu]

33. yes, Edwards was war mongering on Iran and he dissed Palestine

and he said our relationship with Russia depended on how Russia treated Israel

he also said he spent 2 1/2 hrs. talking alone with Blair! and Blair talked about morality!

how come Edwards did that? hhhmmmmm

Edwards also said the whole world saw our poor because of Katrina but our poor isn't as poor as the rest of the world's poor.

and he was really down on Hamas. hamas this, hamas that.

what a suck up speech.

pooie on him

[sadiesworld]

38. "...our poor isn't as poor as the rest of the world's poor..."

While this may be technically true, why does it increasingly seem to be codespeak for "yeah, I'm on board more sell-out of the US working classes"?

Of course, Edwards has always been a corporate wolf in populists' clothing.

[Leilani]

40. Exactly!

It was a suck up speech, pandering for votes.

He posed no real solutions for the Middle East, or the crisis with Iran.

He simply stoked the fires, during this time of crisis, by trying to prove he has foreign policy knowledege, & cheerleading against Iran.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, & he has little in this field.

[DemDogs]

58. Nope -- not what he said

On C-SPAN you can probably find the link to Edwards and Kemp on their Russia report with the CFR. Listen to that if you misunderstood what he said at AIPAC. You have completely misrepresented his position --

On Blair, it is pretty obvious that he is making a comparison with Bush's lack of interest in a moral foreign policy -- but hey, if you don't like that comparison. (BTW, he didn't say 2 1/2 hours)

On the "whole world saw our poor" he was quoting a European newspaper.

BTW, I don't need to borrow your class notes anymore.

[Tom Joad]

62. So he hates Palestinians. He embraces Israeli militarism.

That is what what is called amongst much of the Dem leadership a "balanced approach".

See if he came out in favor of human rights for all, opposed violence against ALL civilians (Israeli and Palestinian ) that is what we call... extreme. Leftist. Too... fringe. Can't have that, can we.

So never, absoulutely never, will he say anything about the thousands of demolished homes. Never will he say anything about how Palestinian farmers are cut of from their crops by the Annexation wall. Never will he say anything about what a Palestinian mother must feel when her child dies from an Israeli bomb drops nearby (happened this week).

He "balances" this with his one-sided sympathy with Israel.

In the end, however, he is really embracing what is really detrimental to all the people of the Middle East.

[Hardrada]

41. Edwards was just in Iowa trying to be the big antipoverty

warrior and playing to our better instincts because of the 2008 caucuses. But as an AIPAC tool, I am afraid he has disqualified himself already. We have already had that equally useless Evan Bayh sniffing around here. And I suppose we'll get Hillary too. The blooming flowers of evil and war criminality.

[IA_Seth]

42. Hang tight man...

Wesley Clark will be in Iowa the beginning of May (not so sure of your feelings on him, but I like him), with Feingold right around the corner from what I hear.

I also heard the Warner will be visiting central Iowa in the next month or two to help Boswell.

[Hardrada]

47. I'd go for Clark

if he is honest about the Iraq War. And will seek war crimes trials and reparations for the Iraqi people.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

65. Read the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=118169&mesg_id=118169



I have voted Democratic - and contributed to Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party loyally (ok - not for Mayor Pete Flaherty - but he ran against school integration and against mass transit).

I am not a PNACer -- read http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses> - it is all about hegemony over OIL - I have spent 3/4's of my engineering career in alternative, renewble, and green energy.

I am a Left Wing Labor Zionist.

[Colorado Blue]

73. Your comment is appalling to me. It's easy to live up to

"covenants" when people aren't trying to blow your ass off the map.

If you can't tell the difference between the army of a legitimate state and a bunch of fanatic terrorists - G*d help us.

[JI7]

50. change name

to "John Kerry" and you will get more outraged responses from certain people.

as for Edwards, these are things he has always said. i don't know why anyone should be surprised.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Praising Sharon? For what, being brain dead?

Nothing like pandering to the pukes of AIPAC. What is Edwards going to offer them for their adulation, a new war in the Persian Gulf?

[DemDogs]

53. He praised him for withdrawing from Gaza

Bold and brave. I agree.

[1932]

60. For an excellent progressive summary of this issue: Democracy Matters by

Cornel West.

I recommend it highly.

I would love it if everyone read it and debated it here.

[Coastie for Truth]

64. Click on over to

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=118169&mesg_id=118169

and read the three links.

It is all about a loyal portion of the Democratic Base. If a Democratic Candidate told AIPAC to go screw themselves .... There are a lot of loyal Democratic voters/contributors/volunteers who would mis-perceive it differently, and Swiftie Stage Manager Joe Corsi would market it very aggressively. (Hopefully ineffectively, but aggressively).

[Wordie]

69. A troubling issue w/AIPAC is that they aren't covered by campaign

finance regulations covering PACs, and thus can exceed the donation amounts ordinarily specified by law for donations through PACs. This indeed gives them, and any other organizations that don't fit the definition of a PAC but that donate to political candidates, a greater influence.

Recent Developments in Campaign Finance Regulation

In Akins, Supreme Court Rules FEC can be Sued by Citizens to Enforce Disclosure Statutes

FEC v. Akins
U.S. Supreme Court
June 1, 1998

Requirements of Classification as a Political Committee ("Major Purpose Test"): Unaddressed by Court (And this is the problem, imho, which needs to be addressed by Congress -Wordie)

...The underlying question in the case was not the standing of the plaintiffs, however. Instead, it concerned whether the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a membership organization and lobbying group supporting pro-Israel policies, met the technical definition of a "PAC" under the FECA, and therefore had to comply with FECA's disclosure requirements.

The FECA provides that any organization that spends $1000 on campaign-related activity is a PAC. However, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo indicated that, at least in some cases, only organizations whose "major purpose" is electing or defeating candidates may be regulated as a "PAC."

AIPAC admitted its activities included activities related to elections, including setting up meetings between candidates and its members, and distributing candidate position papers to its membership. However, AIPAC claimed these activities all constituted communications with their membership, which are exempt from regulation under FECA. Thus, despite this activity, AIPAC asserted, and the FEC agreed, that AIPAC was not a "political committee," and thus was not required to comply with legal requirements applicable to political committees.

...In the end, however, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the $1000 test or the "major purpose" test was applicable - i.e. whether or not AIPAC was a "political committee" subject to FECA. Instead, the Court sent the case back to the lower courts to reconsider the case in light of the decision that the plaintiffs had standing, and in light of the recent lower court cases.

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/headlines/akins.htm

It seems to me that given all the problems we've been having with lobbying (and I don't mean just the AIPAC-related problems), it is time to revisit this issue. I don't know if there are other organizations that are defined as "membership organizations" that also have no limits set on their donations, but it seems to me that it's time for Congress to start looking at this. It seems to me that the rules should be the same for all donations to candidates.

[Coastie for Truth]

74. I have read both cases - Akins and Buckley v. Valeo

Because of the decisions in these cases, and the fact that your suggestion would materially impact most activist groups and many, many churches and temples and mosques -- I think it would take some legislative craftsmen at least as smart as Justice Roberts and Justice Alito (you saw how fast they took the pro-lifers under from under RICO) to accomplish this task.

Might I suggest you approach--

Former Secretary of State James Addison Baker III (Baker and Botts, Houston),
Former Federal Judge Kenneth Winston Starr, Jr. (Pepperdine Univ), and
Former Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo (Univ of California @ Berkeley Law School)

for some assistance in your efforts.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

76. AIPAC RAWWWWWKSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

[barb162]

77. and John Edwards does too!

[martymar64]

82. Edwards lost my vote

He talked a good game vis a vis poverty in America, but he just proved to this AMERICAN that he has more loyalty to Israel than his own country. AIPAC should register as a foreign agent.

[Jim Sagle]

84. I used to belong to AIPAC, and I'm as American as anyone - even you.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

87. Since he grew up poor I doubt if he was talking a "good game"

He felt and lived that poverty. And I think he is totally loyal to the US. He realizes that Israel has always been a supportive and loyal ally and wishes to continue support of Israel

[Andromeda]

88. Edwards is a good man and a good American.

His loyalty is with his own country and he believes in preserving the relationship that the U.S. has with Israel. Most Democrats have the same position.

[IndianaGreen]

85. We call this pandering from where I come from

American politicians think that AIPAC is representative of the community as a whole, just as some people believe that James Dobson is representative of the Christian community as a whole.

None of the members of AIPAC, or their children, will have to go to any of the wars they advocate.