Will honest comments hurt John Edwards?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. Tuesday, February 20, 2007

    Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

    Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:

    There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

    Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

    Or, you know, perhaps not.

    http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/
     
  2. Arnie

    Arnie

    I think Edwards will be one of the better train wrecks this campaign season.

    I bet we get to see him cry like a little girl before its over. What a candy ass!!
    :D :D
     
  3. .....On the other hand, he has a valid point...
     
  4. I've mentioned this before. Except for some liberal Jews who are perhaps 3% of the electorate, the left is NOT pro-Israel.

    Edwards can distinguish himself in the Dem field by standing against Israel.

    He knows that.

    A large segment of America is open to a Mid East policy that doesn't assume Israel is right on every issue.

    Ultimately the secular/agnostic left will sell Israel out.

    Of course so would the Buchanan right.......
     
  5. That's not what he said or at least not what he meant.

    Everyone on the planet knows that Israel may have no choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and that this may start a war, what else is new? Whether that makes Israel "the biggest threat", or Ahmedinijad who is asking for trouble, or Iranian nuclear program, or Al-Qaeda which is already waging a war is highly debatable.

    Let alone the fact that there is no world peace today so how can you be "the biggest threat" to what does not even exist.
     
  6. So you are calling the author of the article I posted a liar?

    Which means you are also calling Peter Bart a liar....

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727.html?categoryid=1&cs=1


    Other comments from Bart in the above referenced article:

    "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals. Support from Christian zealots, who now represent about one third of Israel's tourist business, is welcomed even though, according to evangelical doctrine, Judgment Day will bring the ultimate destruction of Israel and death to most of its residents.

    The Economist observed this week that "knee jerk defensiveness" of Israel ultimately will erode support for that country around the world, even among Jews. Only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," the magazine points out, and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish." And Jimmy Carter only exacerbates these mixed signals with his recent perorations that Israel must "give back" territories to the Palestinians.

    Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the "I" word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today's political dialogue.

    The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community. Further, as Democratic candidates compete to propose ever bolder ways to bureaucratize health care, this issue, too, could undermine the seemingly liberal consensus."

     
  7. I call their interpretation of what Edwards meant to say wrong. It most likely was a bad choice of words on Edwards part, happens to the best of us.
     
  8. "That's not what he said or at least not what he meant."

    You claim that is either not what he said, calling the author a liar, or not what Edwards meant.

    You are also a mind reader? You know what Edwards meant?

    Why don't we wait until we see an explanation from Edwards if he chooses to do so...


     
  9. Fair enough, you and the authors of the articles you posted should have done exactly that and waited for Edwards' explanation (or lack of it) before jumping to conclusions.
     
  10. No, they quoted Edwards.

    So far, I have seen nothing from Edwards to retract or attempt to explain his comments as anything more than they appear.

    Geez, we should wait for every politician to explain their comments once they say something before quoting them?

    How absurd...

    You don't like the quote? Blame Edwards, not the messengers.



     
    #10     Feb 20, 2007