WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAY THEY'LL DO ABOUT IRANIAN NUKES

The Evasive Democrats by James Kirchick (Contentions)
At Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Tim Russert asked a very simple question of the major candidates, beginning first with Hillary Clinton:

Senator Clinton, in 1981, the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria. If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

Any presidential candidate serious about the American-Israel relationship, who also understands the boon to humanity that was Israel’s 1981 Osirak attack, would answer in the affirmative, preferably just “yes.” A bit verbose, Mayor Giuliani’s answer is nonetheless a good example:

Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they’re going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them, we will set them back eight to ten years. That is not said as a threat. That should be said as a promise.

Meanwhile, here were Hillary’s responses:

CLINTON: Tim, I think that’s one of those hypotheticals, that is…

RUSSERT: It’s not a hypothetical, Senator.

CLINTON: …better not
addressed at this time.

This back-and-forth went on for several minutes.

Russert then asked the same question of Barack Obama, who, after asking to “back up for a second,” replied:

I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.

Next, Russert asked Edwards, who, like Clinton and Obama, simply refused to answer a yes-or-no question with a “yes” or “no.” The essence of his response?

Carrots being, we will help you with your economy if, in fact, you give up your nuclear ambitions. The flip side being, there will be severe economic sanctions if you don’t.

Imposing “severe economic sanctions,” is what the Bush administration has been trying to do for years. This effort has been unsuccessful, of course, thanks to our friends the Chinese and the Russians. Senator Edwards has an excellent record of convincing juries in the South to award his clients millions of dollars; perhaps he’s counting on his effortless charm to work in Beijing and Moscow. Either way, it’s unsettling to witness the Democrats’ abject refusal to answer properly a question of critical importance to American security.

SEE ALSO: All Dems but Clinton oppose Iran measure (JTA)
U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the lone Democratic presidential candidate to support a Senate amendment that described Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity.

The non-binding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, initiated by U.S. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.), passed Sept. 26 by a vote of 76-22. It said the Revolutionary Guards was responsible for some of the insurgent attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and urged the Bush administration to name the group as a terrorist entity, a designation that would severely restrict the Guards to function in world markets. Bush is believed to be considering such a designation; it would be the first time the label has been applied to a wing of the armed forces of a sovereign nation.

In order to gain an overwhelming majority, Lieberman agreed to remove two paragraphs from the amendment's original language that called for a U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" the Guards inside Iraq and to "support the prudent and calibrated use of instruments of United States national power in Iraq" to do so. Democrats felt that language came too close to endorsing war, even in a non-binding amendment.

The change won the support of Clinton (D-N.Y.), a front-runner in the race for her party's presidential candidacy. Two other Democratic presidential candidates voted against it: Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was absent from the vote, but later said he would have voted against it.

Clinton came under fire at a Sept. 26 debate for her vote from other candidates, including former senators Mike Gravel of Alaska and John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

"I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," Edwards said, commending Biden and Dodd for their votes against the amendment.

JPOST ASKS U.S. PRES. CANDIDATES ABOUT EDUCATION

'The Road to the White House' (JPost)
Question #5: The cost of education has become almost unaffordable for parents who send their children to parochial schools, Jewish or other. No one is asking for the state to pay for religious studies. Americans want to keep Church and state separate. But what is your platform/plan/program to assist parents who want their children to have a religious as well as secular education?

Contributors:
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (D)
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (D)
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (D)
Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (D)
Senator John McCain of Arizona (R)

Click here to read the answers>>>

JOHN EDWARDS: ISRAEL IS GREATEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

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

EDWARDS' "INCONSISTENCY" ON IRAN'S NUKES

Indecision 2008--II by James Taranto (WSJ-BOTW)
Yesterday we noted Sen. Hillary Clinton's maddeningly noncommittal comments about Iran at last week's American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner. On Sunday her fellow Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards gave an interview to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," in which he engaged in similar circumlocution:

Russert: Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

Edwards: I--there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a--it's a--it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have--we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is.

Russert: But they may get one.

Edwards: Yeah. I think--I think the--we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president.

Compare this with what Edwards said on the subject Jan. 22--just 13 days earlier--when he delivered an address by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference:

Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent U.N. resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate--ALL options must remain on the table.

Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect , a liberal-left magazine, asked Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and he sounded quite a different note:

Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.

Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?

Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Edwards: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've . . . We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do--I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way--with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, an Edwards admirer, is critical, but not critical enough:

Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues. At the Israeli conference he did mention direct engagement with Iran, even if it was only in response to a question at the end. And with the Prospect, he did say that all options had to be left on the table--including, presumably, military action. Still, you'd barely know it was the same person talking if you read both conversations with no names attached.

No contradiction? In Herzliya, Edwards said unequivocally, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." In the Klein interview, he said, "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet." Granted, we're not dealing in the realm of pure binary logic, but it seems to us that Edwards's coy "I'm not ready" makes nonsense of his resolute "under no circumstances." And that "yet" suggests that it is only a matter of time before he crosses the bridge.

At a time of international peril, the president must have the capacity to be steadfast. Edwards lacks the capacity even to seem steadfast. If he backs down so easily under the pressure of domestic intraparty politics, how can we trust him to protect America's interests when negotiating with a vicious adversary?