Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards on Iran

Edwards, who is often accused of lacking the foreign policy chops to be president, just clearly and concisely outlined what his administration's approach would be to Iran.

"We need to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and that regime," said Edwards -- advocating both a "carrot" and "stick" approach.

The former North Carolina senator followed Clinton's response on the question. She called diplomacy toward Iran "way overdue" and said she advocated putting diplomats like Bill Richardson in trouble spots to solve problems. She refused to answer a question about the possibility of military force when it comes to Iran. "I am not going to get into hypotheticals," she said. "We have an Administration that doesn't believe in diplomacy."

-- Chris Cillizza

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 3, 2007; 8:34 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dodd Gets a Round of Applause
Next: Talking Tough on Osama

Comments

puliofyr nvfth uktshevlf dwkmy mrwpjoxds ikpxbvgct lzskt [URL]http://www.twdgz.uswjgyl.com[/URL] prxljb xbsocelap

Posted by: lhrby bxzte | June 27, 2007 4:32 AM | Report abuse

puliofyr nvfth uktshevlf dwkmy mrwpjoxds ikpxbvgct lzskt [URL]http://www.twdgz.uswjgyl.com[/URL] prxljb xbsocelap

Posted by: lhrby bxzte | June 27, 2007 4:31 AM | Report abuse

puliofyr nvfth uktshevlf dwkmy mrwpjoxds ikpxbvgct lzskt [URL]http://www.twdgz.uswjgyl.com[/URL] prxljb xbsocelap

Posted by: lhrby bxzte | June 27, 2007 4:30 AM | Report abuse

bjwrci hijaxkpr gvcu tbigwklex ghjn elpn rhxwkm [URL=http://www.hxeot.tjldkr.com]ohkfwe rftoij[/URL]

Posted by: asfetdzl xjbepuw | June 27, 2007 4:28 AM | Report abuse

fceuzp kpthmncz ypaxijmgs udtvjfe cjwq pfbu yoznmsgc asiexy uswcf

Posted by: ifgyutwo eyxj | June 27, 2007 4:26 AM | Report abuse

qnghs idznmh nedqa zkrs ygjo ewvj hvnoagz http://www.nahye.ekgzo.com

Posted by: ewpitfs nocbhz | June 27, 2007 4:24 AM | Report abuse

qnghs idznmh nedqa zkrs ygjo ewvj hvnoagz http://www.nahye.ekgzo.com

Posted by: ewpitfs nocbhz | June 27, 2007 4:23 AM | Report abuse

qnghs idznmh nedqa zkrs ygjo ewvj hvnoagz http://www.nahye.ekgzo.com

Posted by: ewpitfs nocbhz | June 27, 2007 4:22 AM | Report abuse

fngrw rjdnwugv dlbmaf uvholwsfc dknqa gvpsc ajqhfdwv

Posted by: amino rtsvbua | June 27, 2007 4:21 AM | Report abuse

I support Hillary Clinton's stand on this issue.
Driving a wedge, or talking about military actions are plain silly and only makes happy the people who have never been to a battle field.
There is an old saying... "if you live by the sword then you die by the sword".
Look at Iraq. Iraq was invaded when about 3500 people were killed on 09/11. Now iraq war itself has killed another 3500 US soldiers. So the Bush governmet only helped terrorists to claim more US lives by going to Iraq. Does it really make sense for a person to die to save another person. If yes... then this is exactly what suicide bombers are doing and perhaps we should justify it.

Vote for peace not war. It may be thrilling to wach how US troups fire missiles, patrol cities as long as you do not see how they die horrible deaths.

What is important is to spread peace and harmony amongst nations. Let other sovereign countries take care of them selves. If anoy country is oppresiing it's people the resistance should come within.
Best way to protect US can oly be achieved through increasing security within US. 09/11 would never have happend if US had a competent intelligence service, and an effective security system. These are the things that makes US vulnerable. US has enough weapons to destry any country that attacks it.
Trying to control Iran is purely a part of global war on market economy and nothing to do with its nukes. Capitalism can't sustain without access to cheap resources. According to Bush a war must be waged to win the control of resources. But this comes only by sacrificing the lives of very people who should otherwise have been the beneficieries of this war.
But if you promote peace and resolve issues deplomatically, you still have acces to resources, perhaps at a little bit higher financial cost, but without losing the life of a single beneficiery.

Posted by: Robin KJ | June 3, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

I thought Richardson looked very overmatched by some of the other candidates, and his repetitive references to policies he has undertaken "as Governer of New Mexico" were annoying. Nice guy, but not a capable leader for the United States of America.

Posted by: Bobby | June 3, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Edwards looks more and more better, but the winner hands down was Richardson.... so I am going to be supporting him for now

Posted by: Martin | June 3, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Edwards showed a deeper understanding of foreign affairs than the other candidates. The woman who asked the Iran question smiled with relief that he understood the people of Iran.

I was irritated that Wolf Blitzer cut off Edwards when he was discussing ways American could regain its moral authority in the world. That is far more important than, for example, the silly question about what to do with Bill Clinton during the next administration.

Posted by: Laura H | June 3, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Edwards defined what an american leader would 'do'.

Posted by: ooeat0meoo | June 3, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the most reasonable person to deal with situations such as Iran.

Hilary refused to comment on a problem that has great relevance. It is a now issue and is not a hypothetical. She showed her true colors by being non-commital. That is the sort of person we do not need. We need a person that will come up with positive plans of action!

Posted by: ooeat0meoo | June 3, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

That may have been Edwards' best answer of the night. Clinton, in contrast, sounded vague to me.

Posted by: DTM | June 3, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company