Ben Smith's Politico: Edwards' campaign has changed a key passage in its website's Iran discussion

[flpoljunkie]

November 05, 2007

A change on Iran

Since September, and as White House hints of military action against Iran intensify, the Edwards campaign has changed a key passage in its website's discussion of Iran.

As of September 7, the passage read:

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.

The passage now reads:

Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.

The rest of the text of the 2,000-word foreign policy page is unchanged. And while this is obviously an update to keep pace with the news, the first version lacks any condemnation of the planned terrorist designation.

Some Democrats worried about a war in Iran, like Edwards in a speech today, have been critical both of the substance of the declaration -- declaring part of a foreign government a terrorist group -- and of the congressional endorsement of it, for which Hillary was alone among presidential candidates in voting, and which they argue could be taken as authorization.

An Edwards aide said the text change didn't reflect a shift, and that the first version was meant to present Bush's move as a fait accompli, not to endorse it.

NOTE: The Edwards campaign, reportedly alone among the presidential campaigns, blocks other websites from caching or archiving its data, which prevents observers from checking on whether details have been changed. The earlier version of the foreign policy platform, however, was also posted on the blog TalkLeft, which is what I link above. (I took this down momentarily after the campaign disputed it; but various geeks now tell me it's true, and you can see that it's not archiving here. I'll have more in a bit.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/A_change_on_Iran.html

[cuke]

1. Edwards and Obama are both being disingenous

They both supported designating IRG a terrorist organization and didn't think that was a pretext for war. Now that HRC voted for that, they're suddenly worried about designating IRG as terrorists

[flpoljunkie]

3. The Obama endorsed resolution the Hillary supporters always bring up, includes the prohibition it is

not in any way to be interpreted as a basis for military action. Kyl-Lieberman does not.

Senator Dodd explained the difference in an October 28th appearance on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: But back in March, Senator, you were a co-sponsor of a resolution that said this: “The secretary of state should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization.” “The secretary of the treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Theorists relating to blocking property,” “prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.” What’s the difference?

SEN. DODD: Well, a huge difference, Tim. That was the, the Gordon Smith bill, which he introduced, 68 of his co-sponsors, Senator Kennedy, myself, Jim Webb, among others here, that was exclusively focused on diplomacy and sanctions and specifically said no military action should be taken in Iran without the prior approval of the Congress. Very, very different approaches than the resolution offered by Senators Kyl and Lieberman, which, the language on diplomacy and sanctions was removed before the final vote. The only reference there was keeping military force possibly in Iraq in order to deal with the Iranian situation. Very, very different.

http://chrisdodd.com/blog/meet-press:-iran

[cuke]

4. So what?

* will say "Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all say that Iran is harboring a terrorist organization. I agree with them. They say we should deal with these terrorists by negotiating with them. I disagree with them on this. That's why I attacked Iran"

[flpoljunkie]

7. Have edited the post to add Dodd explaining the difference on Meet the Press on 10/28th.

[cuke]

9. Proves nothing

"The only reference there was keeping military force possibly in Iraq in order to deal with the Iranian situation. Very, very different."

K/L also limits military action "in Iraq" (from K/L)

Both contain the same pretext that * could use. * will say I disagree about using dplomacy.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Senators Dodd and Obama disagree.

[cuke]

15. So what?

[Adelante]

2. So much for transparency

Not to mention history.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. At least he has been cionsistant on other issues like

the War in Iraq and Free Trade.

[JDPriestly]

18. These statements are not inconsistent. See my post below.

[cali]

6. and this represents why I feel cynical about Edwards

Of course my cynicism isn't limited just to him.

[Adelante]

8. Unless something's changed in the past few months

You can't even SEE his 2004 site. It's completely off limits.

[wyldwolf]

13. you can access it now via archive

Interesting passage jumped out at me:

"Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone."

[JDPriestly]

19. Edwards has apologized for being wrong about Hussein

and has explained why he made that mistake. Are you perfect? Neither am I. But, like Edwards, I try to take responsibility for my mistakes. That is the closest I will ever be to perfect.

[wyldwolf]

10. I think Sen. Clinton is still has the gloves on.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Evidently the first version didn't fare well in the focus group. And THIS:

NOTE: The Edwards campaign, reportedly alone among the presidential campaigns, blocks other websites from caching or archiving its data, which prevents observers from checking on whether details have been changed.

Wow. George Bush much, Johnny?

[Cameron27]

14. Typical John Edwards move.

[AtomicKitten]

16. A 'smooth move' offering to the God of Politics.

Kinda like this: http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2007/11/04/how-edwards-screwed-obama-out-of-nh-seiu-endorsement/

I suppose voters will decide if it is acceptable or if it is cheese.

[JDPriestly]

17. Reading lesson 101: The facts have changed, and the statements reflect

different reactions to different facts.

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.

Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. We saw in Iraq where such steps by Congress can lead President Bush. Edwards has announced his opposition to this bill.

Neither paragraph threatens military action. The first predicts that Iran's Revolutionary Guard will be deemed a terrorist organization. There is nothing wrong with that. The second sentence states that Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been identified as a terrorist organization. These sentences reflect different facts because of the change in the situation.

Edwards' statement that he has announced his opposition to this bill has to do with his warnings right before the bill was passed that the bill should not suggest that Bush could have the authority to go to war. There is no contradiction between these paragraphs. The second is an update based on new facts. Approval or disapproval of a general statement that Iran's Revolutionary Guard will be identified as a terrorist organization is not the same as approval or disapproval of "this bill" which is the bill as Congress passed it.

[creeksneakers2]

20. Edwards is a double talker

Switching posts on his web site is just what I'd expect from him.