Edwards: Treaty With Iran Possible; Candidate Talking About Nonaggressive Alternatives

[JohnLocke]

Edwards: Treaty With Iran Possible
Candidate Talking About Nonaggressive Alternatives
By Terry Moran--ABC News
Monday, February 26, 2007
----
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a group of New Hampshire voters Saturday that he would consider pursuing a nonaggression pact between the United States and Iran.

Edwards' statement came in answer to a voter's question at a house party in Nashua on Saturday morning. Asked about it later in an interview with ABC News, Edwards confirmed that he views such a treaty -- in which the United States would promise not to attack Iran -- as "a possibility down the road." But he emphasized that the Iranian government would first have to change its behavior in several areas.

Watch all of Terry Moran's interview with former Sen. John Edwards tonight on "Nightline" at 11:35 p.m. ET.
"I wouldn't give away anything until it became clear what the intent of Iran was, that they've given up any nuclear ambition, that they would no longer sponsor Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations," Edwards told ABC News, in an interview to be broadcast on "Nightline" Monday night. "So there would be huge jumps and these things would all have to be verifiable. We'd have to be certain that they were occurring in order to get to that stage. But I think we would consider all of our relations on the table."

Edwards' willingness to pursue a nonaggression pact with the Iranian government could put him at odds not just with President Bush, but also with his Democratic rivals, none of whom has gone as far in advocating an alternative to the administration's increasingly confrontational stance toward Tehran. But Edwards' statement could win him support of many Democratic primary voters, who are deeply mistrustful of the president's policies and motives and deeply concerned about the possibility of another war in the Middle East.
(...)
Instead, Edwards advocates what he calls "a much smarter course in Iran," starting with direct negotiations with Tehran on several issues. The United States, Edwards said, should be "engaging Iran directly on both nuclear weapons and on Iraq, bringing our European friends, to put a system of carrots and sticks on the table, a proposal that would allow Iran to do better economically and still have nuclear power without developing a nuclear weapon, with there being consequences, economic consequences if they fail to do that."

Those steps, Edwards argued, would "empower the moderates and the reformers within Iran who want to get on a more responsible course and not on a course toward proliferation."
----
Read the rest here.

[chimpymustgo]

1. Thank you for posting this. Edwards does not want war.

It's disgusting the way some on this board lie about him. He is a good man - who wants to bring our troops home.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I don't believe ANY of our candidates want war.

the term warmonger is thrown around too carelessly here

[PATRICK]

2. Highight the intent

of the Wh to trash even its OWN diplomatic ventures when they began to work. Humiliating Powell. Backinh doenw on progress with NK. Shying away from overtures or mediation from others. And sealing the deal, showing overt and non-negotiable menace with demands but a pretext for aggression.

What the US can do has always been much wider than the WH EVER will allow. The clarity of their ill will and bad faith and hypocrisy is evidential, horrific and totally consistent without a ray of hope or sanity anywhere. Past examples pale in number and type, with, perhaps, only the GOP trashing of Reagan's closeness to arms negotiations coming close to the threat this ill intent is causing.

Unhampered by the inevitable political interpretation the news spins ALL Democratic positions, it seems clear that Edwards is trying to ease back our hostage nation from the brink of WH insanity. The problem of course is Bush/Cheney, the chief obstacle to anything good in this world. Anyone getting close to leading the aroused public in an effective way to dealing with the main problem needs to start tackling THAT chestnut ASAP.

And Edwards' defusing the cowardly go-along trap of the current sucker play is one necessary step, because lower tier leaders are letting America down in a way as disastrous as the WH insanity.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Good for John Edwards and good for us!

I applaud John Edwards for softening up his public stance on Iran.
John Edwards listens to the netroots, which is a good thing!
The more we object, the more he changes. I'm encouraged! :headbang:

Even if Wes Clark doesn't get any coverage, others who hold the national microphone are picking up his points. Good thing all the way round!

[chimpymustgo]

4. Thanks for accepting his OWN WORDS on the matter...and not something made up

on the 'net. Quite a lot of bs out there - as you know.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Cheers.....

:toast:

[JohnLocke]

6. Kick (nt).

[Gloria]

7. Refreshing thoughts.

[Clarkie1]

8. There is a critical, key difference between Clark and Edwards on this.

First, I applaud Edwards for moving more towards diplomacy, however I don't believe his approach would be entirely the right one.

"I wouldn't give away anything until it became clear what the intent of Iran was, that they've given up any nuclear ambition, that they would no longer sponsor Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations," Edwards told ABC News, in an interview to be broadcast on "Nightline" Monday night. "So there would be huge jumps and these things would all have to be verifiable. We'd have to be certain that they were occurring in order to get to that stage. But I think we would consider all of our relations on the table."

Compare that to this:

Diane Rehm: So, you would take Iran's proposed or purported development of nuclear weapons off the table?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I'd say that's one of the things we're going to talk about directly.

Diane Rehm: But would you talk about that first?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'd talk first about-

Diane Rehm: Would that be a precondition?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I'd go in with a set of principles that we agree, in the region, that we want for the region that borders should be respected, security needs should be respected, that the Iraqi people should have a right to determine their own future, and have that dialog with Iraqi and Syrian and Turkish leaders - all the people who are effected by it-

Diane Rehm: Gen-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -and see what comes from it.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

See the difference? It's huge.

[1932]

9. What do you think the difference is?

[Clarkie1]

10. Preconditions. nt

[Clarkie1]

12. Also Clark emphsizes addressing the security needs of the entire region.

Not just focusing on Iran in isolation.

[Leilani]

13. I think the difference is

seasoning!

:evilgrin:

[Clarkie1]

14. Now, now....

play nice. I do want to have an open and respectul dialogue with Edwards supporters. I know he does not war...nobody wants war. Edwards is trying...he's learning and he's growing.

But we need to have an open and civil dialogue on this issues, because they are critical. I want to learn more, too.

[Leilani]

15. Lighten Up!

Can't you take a joke?

:P

[Clarkie1]

16. .

:hi:

[JohnLocke]

17. Kick (nt).

[Clarkie1]

18. Would you please be so kind as to address post #8. Thank you.

:hi:

[Clarkie1]

20. Are you a paid operative? A simple yes or no will suffice.

For the record, I'm not.

[Clarkie1]

21. Hey JohnLocke...cat got your tongue? nt

[JohnLocke]

22. No, and I have a life so I don't usually respond immediately.

[Clarkie1]

23. I have a life too, so I can relate to that.

Thanks for your reply. Still hoping to hear your thoughts on post #8.

[zulchzulu]

19. Good news

Let's see if someone attacks him for not understanding the eeee-vil that is Iran.

[NDP]

24. You should have heard the Republicans on C-Span this morning.

They were saying, "You can't talk to people like that." People like what? If they knew anything, then they'd realize that most of the people in Iran are "moderates" who actually "like" the United States of America, and want their country to become more like this one (ironically, Bush and Ahmadinejad makes the countries a lot alike). Iran is exactly the kind of country that you want to reach out to.