I Don't give a RAT's ASS about JE's House-I care about JE'S Bushit BRAVADO on IRAN, Etc..

[FrenchieCat]

Let the man have his house. Please!

The problem for me isn't John Edwards' house, the problem is the fact that Edwards is currently turning up the heat to boiling on delicate foreign policy issues when it isn't required and one that the next President will definitely have to work on. the Issue of Iran and the issue of Israel's future.

Edwards, IMO, is adding weight to Bush's Neocon's voice on this matter in the same tone as Bush, which is not what we need from our Democratic candidates.

Sooooooo....I'm not about to let something like John Edwards new big house obscure the fact that John Edwards is talking more than he should about something that he needs to be studying instead of him making pronouncements to a Neocon crowd....and in essence Edwards is doing more saber rattling than is required....expecially considering his experience on being wrong about Iraq...in another episode in where he also did more talking than was required.

His suggestion that Israel should be invited to join NATO is also not wise advice, IMO. The various complexities regarding Israel, Europe and the ME are not gonna be solved by such a move....and we should be trying to solve problems, not making them bigger. NATO has a pledge that any NATO country attacked by someone else will be defended by NATO countries...meaning that any squirmish occuring in Israel (which is often enough) could bring on WWIII if Israel is a NATO member. There are many, many other reasons why the suggestion certainly shouldn't be coming from a neotype politician at an AIPAC get-together.....

Bottomline; I don't like how Edwards foreign policy stance is shaping up. Even his call for 50,000 troops out with no real plan being offered becomes an election slogan.

Look, part of why I don't want Edwards in the Big White House is because I don't believe he has what it takes to deal with the important foreign policy issues that are on the table. That, and the fact that I personally feel that Edwards is milking the poverty issue to the point that's a bit too calculating for me (but that's for another thread, another day--and it is my perception based on his record prior to his running for President).

Here are some of the relevant threads on the subject of what I have just mentioned here, which simply put, is bigger than John Edwards' house. This is about what type of voice we want the United States to be represented by in years to come when we talk about repairing the damage that BushCo has done to our reputation and the state of affairs around the world! Something that is discussed every single day.

Let's get serious. :patriot:

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x33466

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=51841&mesg_id=51841

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3075947&mesg_id=3075947

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3076746&mesg_id=3076746

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3078702

[roody]

1. k

[Erika]

2. Edwards is turning the heat up to boiling in foreign policy

so you are slamming him. But you have no noted criticism of Bush?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

8. Bush isn't the topic of conversation here...it's Edwards.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[roguevalley]

11. so if you find fault with one of our guys, its only okay if you lay into

one of theirs? you know, I was under the impression that ones opinions didn't have to pass a litmus test of this or that. but then, I'm old. I remember back when you could kick our guys in the ass when you believed they were wrong and no one called your patriotism out for it.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[roguevalley]

22. hey, pal, I've been a dem for forty years. I can "kick dems in the ass"

if i want to. Its called democracy. its called free speech. how dare you call me a freeper for EXERCISING my right to free speech and saying what I believe. so, only you can have an opinion? last time I heard, goosestepping together behind the party line was republican. don't let the fucking door hit you on the ass either, pal.

[slipslidingaway]

20. 'Going for Iran', what do you think Edwards is saying?

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

snip>>
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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=42383&mesg_id=42383

[FrenchieCat]

26. He ain't just saying that one paragraph...that's for sure.

Glad you found a clean one out of the many though.

Those links I posted provide much more than you are willing to show, I reckon?

[slipslidingaway]

50. And that is why I posted the link to the speech from the

conference site with hopefully more detail of what he said, not just an article written about the speech. Why do you think this is a 'clean' paragraph and state that I am not willing to show more of his message? I posted the link to his speech along with a Q&A that is not mentioned in most of the articles!

Here are the two most disturbing sentences in that paragraph for me.


snip>>
"This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran."

Going for Iran? What the hell does that mean. Going for what, for tea?


snip>>
"So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

What needs to be done about Iran according to Edwards?
The question asked of him was whether or not he would be prepared to take further action if diplomacy failed and he states that the Americans can be educated as to what needs to be done with Iran.

Far from a clean paragraph I think the answer is more of a red flag in my opinion.


snip>> here is part of the question

"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?"


Now I see that the post I replied to by Erika has been deleted.

I AGREE with you...forget the house diversion/discussion and focus on his latest remarks about Iran.


:toast:

[Cameron27]

21. We're thinking about bush alright,

and wondering if bombs are dropping on Iran as we speak. Who needs the same BS fear mongering and ultimatums from Edwards?

I want someone who can not only put out flames, but someone who won't start any fires to begin with. This is what I want hear from our side:

Sean Hannity: But do you…I agree with that, but do you really believe there’s even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well I don’t think he’s the only…Sean, he’s not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are…who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We’ve got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We’ve got to show a different vision for the region. We’ve got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That’s our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.

Sean Hannity: I think the single best security we will have against Iran is to have the biggest, strongest, toughest military and the means to back it up. Let me ask you this, sir. You said, you said…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know the military is the last resort.

Sean Hannity: I agree. You said

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure.

Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change the mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that’s false hope.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think he’s the only guy in charge, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Well I think it’s false hope and naïve.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you’re trying to personalize a country around a single person.

Sean Hannity: I’m not. I’m not, but he’s their leader.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: and that was the mistake in Iraq.

Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

edited: Meant to reply to post 9 !!!

[FrenchieCat]

15. I already know I ain't voting for Bush....

And Have criticized Bush for much.

This is about the Next President.

And if slamming means criticizing him for his Foreign policy policy speech, than I guess that you can put it that way.

However, I don't consider it slamming, and you may want to explain how that is.

[Clark2008]

47. Bush isn't running in the Dem primary.

You point?

[The Count]

3. Hear, hear! To me also the silence on the 2004 theft is a deal breaker

(was for both candidates).
But the war thingie is scary - as most seem unaware and ready to overlook because of the oops. So, it was shown once here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244
I am especially spooked by this sponsorship of IWR - as it was kept under the radar through all his 2004 run

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[scarletwoman]

42. Whooaaaaa! Edwards was a CO-SPONSOR of the IRW?!?!

Yeah, they sure DID keep that under wraps in 2004! I didn't know it until just now!

Fascinating, as Spock would say...

sw

[Contrite]

4. Absolutely

But I still think the exorbitant house is relevant because of his "two Americas" spiel. If the class divide offends him so, why flaunt the fact that he is one of the "have mores"? I work in construction. 30,000 square feet is completely wasteful, especially when a family of four can live comfortably in a home 1/10th that size.

[Erika]

5. I'm sure you know the size of Rush's house in Florida

Or the Kennebunkport complex of the Bush's. No comment? Or their other Texas ownings?

[roguevalley]

14. so what. they suck too. one of the things that have been pounded in

about pugs is their unconcern for the have nots and their big ass lifestyles. if they are wrong, why isn't edwards too? it isn't one road for some and not for others.

[FrenchieCat]

16. This thread ain't about Edwards' house.....

It's about Doing more rattling than required.

Do you have any points to make on that....or are to get sidetracked again?

[Adelante]

55. This thread is about POLICY

Not freaking houses.

[femrap]

12. You get it!

I was beginning to wonder if all DUers had become Libertarians or Greed is Good idiots.

It's very wasteful.

[baldingrockwarlord2]

6. never mind the house....

As far as I'm concerned, the deal breaker for me with Edwards is how quickly and easily both he and Kerry rolled over during the last election. He did so to save his own a**, and for all that "we've got your back America" crap they spewed, I'm disappointed enough that I don't think he deserves another chance. But let the process decide. I don't think the oppulant house will help his "street cred" with the regular working Joe either, but he ruined his chances with voters like me who already trusted and believed in him once and was let down tremendously. Screw him.

[Erika]

7. The Edwards have suffered tremendously

Unlike Bush, who inherited wealth and privilege, the Edwards made it on their own. Congrats!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

10. That’s right , Edwards is the first generation rich in his family.

He must be a hell of a lawyer to have so much money. I know politicians don't make a lot of money.

Or maybe he knows what corporations make good investments. Who needs another insider trader in the White House?

Or maybe Edwards been guaranteed a successful future...I just hope IF in fact, he’s been guaranteed a successful future, it not by the same people he helped get into Iraq and now Iran.

I have an uneasy feeling about any of our senator canidates who gave Bush the power to go into Iraq. I mean didn't any of them know about PNAC? They had to know that it was Cheney's plan to rule the Middle East.

[Erika]

13. He helped get into Iraq?

Uh?

Still no criticism of the GOP.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Will the next President be GOP or what?

Are we not allowed to question what Edwards says on foreign policy matters? Is that none of our business either?

I agree that the house is whatever folks want to take away from it....

Foreign policy is a bit more than that.

Oh and please note that the PNAC/NEOCON/GOP's Foreign policy stances stinks like shit. And Cowboy Bush is full of it as well.

However, that doesn't make everything else a rose.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

19. The GOP are very very very bad people...it's a given.

Are we suppose to type that everytime we post, or we'll be seen as a turncoat?

[FrenchieCat]

25. Might interrupt a wet dream or two....so yes, I guess

We must take the oath of being good Dems everytime what we say something that not positive about John Edwards, even if it's policy related. If it isn't peachy Keen than it ain't worth talking about. It's the camelot thingie, doncha know?....As long as it ain't advertised on the Teevee, it really didn't happen. Of course, the Corporate media ain't gonna report it.....it's a secret, what Edwards says in NeoCon backrooms via satellite....

Edwards goes to Wendys, and we hear about it night and day. Down to earth, etc....that you can take to the bank...

But if he saber rattles about war and peace to a neocon crowd, then heaven forbid that it should be discussed. and unlike what poster up thread attempting to sanitizing one paragraph out of many (guess that was the only one clean enought) it ain't quite that easy. But I give poster Kudos, cause at least he attempted to address one of the issues I raised.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

30. We have a while before the primaries and even more time before the big election.

I think it's better if we weed out all hawks or corporate dems now then after they win the primary.

I think it's nonsense how so many feel we should just blindly support all democrats.

I’m proud to be a democrat, but we’re all Americans first. We want the best for our country.

I never voted for a republican and I know I never will, but I want the best democrat we have to move into the White House.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Another item here about John "hawk" Edwards & his friends...

Long article!

Homage to Herzliya
The Lobby wants war with Iran

"US presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, John Edwards and John McCain, along with Newt Gingrich, were in Israel, seemingly competing to see who can be most strident in defense of the Jewish state during personal or video appearances at the conference here, just north of Tel Aviv.

"The four politicians called for ways to prevent Iran's government from acquiring nuclear weapons. While stressing the strong US-Israel ties, the presidential hopefuls all agreed that the US has to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and leave the possibility of a military attack ‘on the table'."

Romney may have won the hyperbole contest, but the big surprise was Edwards, who came in second with his declaration that preventing Iran from getting nukes is "is the greatest challenge of our generation." On the same day he ran an ad in Roll Call calling on Congress to oppose the "surge" in Iraq, he was telling the Herzliya conference that "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."
snip
When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American interests.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[BlackVelvet04]

39. That's just silly......

the GOP are criticized here day in and day out. There is no need to chronicle the wrongs of the GOP in any and every post that criticizes a Democrat.

[NorthernSpy]

23. yeah, the house is vulgar, and it blows any environmentalist, regular Joe, live-your-values cred...

... to smithereens. But that's not what's really bothering me.



The Iran stuff and the AIPAC toadying, now... Sorry. Deal breaker.

Now that we have the House and Senate, I feel pretty comfortable in saying I won't vote for this man. I feel NO sense of urgency or obligation to help Edwards' presidential ambitions along -- even if he ends up being the nominee (Heaven preserve us!).

[Hardrada]

24. I wish AIPAC could be disbanded or at least made much less

influential. Get it down to the level of the Sierra Club and I'd be happy.

[RegimeChange2008]

45. God forbid the Sierra Club was ever that powerful

What the Hell would we ever do with all that clean air and preserved environment. :sarcasm:

[Duppers]

27. Hear hear!

Housing is NOT POLICY statements!!

Besides what about Sen. Kerry's houseS and Sen. Kennedy's, etc.?!
Stop discussing this trivia, trolls.

[magellan]

28. I'm just catching up on this

...but I take it the Edwards have or just bought a humongous house? Someone quoted 30,000 sq ft?? Yikes.

Whatever the case I agree with you, FrenchieCat. Edwards has fallen off my list of candidates I'd support because of his recent speeches about Iran. Given the choice between a Repug who war and fear mongers and a Dem who does same, I'll take neither.

[HuffleClaw]

29. they are whining about his HOUSE because there is NOTHING of substance

to carp about. simple.

[FrenchieCat]

31. ?

?:wtf:

[scarletwoman]

40. Whhooooooosh... That's the sound of the point of your OP flying over somebody's head...

;-)

sw

[Inspired]

33. Your obsession with all things Edwards related

is interesting to watch unfold. Almost amusing.

:shrug:

[madmunchie]

34. Personally, I thank Frenchie for trying to educate people as to who

Edwards really is!! What is really amusing though, is how difficult it is for - too many people to --get it.

[Inspired]

35. I'm sure she appreciates your thanks.

I find it a little disturbing but if it is working for you, I guess you would be thankful. I'll get my education from less biased sources.

[madmunchie]

37. Frenchie, might be biased, but she, unlike many others has

a great deal of facts to back up her bias.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Why Am I the issue and not Edwards' actions?

Why shoot the messenger, instead of addressing the message? I know those who operate that way, but I don't belong to that political party. Do I look like Wilson's wife to you? :shrug: So why treat me that way?

Either you can justify what he does or you can't.

I will freely admit that out of all the Democratic side I find Edwards to be the most unauthentic and hawkish.

He co-sponsored the IWR. Hillary didn't even do that.

So why wouldn't I not want to make sure others are aware of this. The big corporate media seems to love John Edwards....which is why his speaking to the Israel Lobby or the story on his house will not be reported....in particular, on TeeVee. It is my opinion that the way the corporate media chooses to report some nit picking stories (Kerry went Windsurfing) vs. not reporting others is a tale tell sign as to who is what.

Follow Edward press coverage....and you will see what I mean.

Has Edwards made any comment on Electronic voting machines, media consolidation or bringing back FCC rules? Didn't think so.

[Clark2008]

48. You're very pretty like Valerie Plame, Frenchie, but I know for

a fact, you ain't no blonde.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

38. So it doesn't bother you to see a Democrat parroting neocon warmongering propaganda?

You find no cause for concern in that?

Are you FOR starting up yet another war in the Middle East?

sw

[KoKo]

36. An Interesting Comment on the MDD Blog in reply to Edwards Iraq Vote

Edwards said his Vote was based on information from Democrats who told him about Iraq threat not just on believing what Bush said or what he heard in Intelligence briefings.

A commenter replies with this:

-------

Re: Much ado about nothing (none / 0)

Edwards in The New Yorker a couple of weeks back:

Edwards is genial in conversation, but he became almost testy when I brought up his vote, in 2002, in favor of the Iraq-war resolution. Edwards has repudiated his vote, unlike Clinton, who has not renounced her own support for the war despite demands from her backers that she do so. Edwards worries that his vote will be seen as evidence that he was somehow fooled by the Administration into giving it his support. "I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons," he said. "There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn't rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there's some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don't think it's true. It's great politics. But it's not the truth."

He brought up the fact that he was on the Intelligence committee:

...so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys.

The problem is, five of the nine Democratic Senate Intelligence committee members at the time -- including then-chair Bob Graham -- voted against the Iraq war resolution. Edwards hasn't said what the super-top-secret evidence that convinced him -- but didn't convince the majority of the Democrats on the committee -- was. Which is kind of odd, because it appears to have been just as wrong as Bush's intelligence.

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php ?ItemRef=614

[jen4clark]

43. Thanks, Frenchie Cat.

I also am baffled by the big deal being made about Edward's new home. WTF is it anybody's business?

But I am also baffled that so many liberal Democrats are willing to overlook his lack of expertise and judgement on foreign affairs. There is already quite a mess that will need cleaning up after Jr. leaves office, and from all indications things may get even worse. It literally scares me silly to think that we may end up with someone with such shallow knowledge in this area. His words about Iran being the biggest threat in the world is eerily similar to his words about Iraq several years ago, which he later realized were wrong. Doesn't he understand that maybe he's wrong this time, too? I don't think he does.

[Faryn Balyncd]

44. Thanks, Frenchie Cat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECOMMENDATION - - - -#12 - - - - -

Is John Edwards reduced to being a cheerleader for a Bush "wag the dog" in Iran???????????......................

[Cameron27]

46. Oh boy, thanks for reminding me..

I completely forgot to do that :dunce:

[Vidar]

49. Well said, FrenchieCat.

[WHAT]

51. SPAM

on wonder bread

ignore (on edit)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. What's he gonna do next? Ride around in a tank?

Posturing politicians pretending to be "strong on defense" would be funny if they didn't, all too frequently, believe their own swashbuckling bullshit.

[scarletwoman]

53. LOL! Thanks -- I take this issue very seriously, but the image you invoked made me laugh!

:rofl:

[rhombus]

54. Recommend

Thanks Frenchie.