{"article":{"id":207789,"heading":" Is John Edwards an Alternative for U.S. Workers?","author":"shane jones","created":"2007-09-26 12:48:57","modified":"2013-11-11 00:49:51","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:49:51","article":"

In January 2002 Edwards joined the rest of the war hawks in proclaiming: “The situation in Iraq is a very serious one. Saddam Hussein hates the United States. He’s been involved in developing weapons of mass destruction. He’s ignored the terms of the cease-fire agreement. He won’t allow the weapons inspectors, our weapons inspectors, into the country. So we have a very serious problem there. And we cannot allow him to continue in this effort to develop and foster weapons of mass destruction. And I think the bottom line is it’s very difficult to imagine a situation where the world is secure, the United States is secure, while Saddam Hussein is still in power.”

In February, as the build up to war mounted: “I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”

Later that same year, in September, he spoke in favor of a unilateral attack saying, “I don’t think we should be bound by what the United Nations does.” And in October 2002: “We know that he has biological [weapons], we know that he has chemical [weapons]. We also know that every single day that goes by he’s increasing the likelihood of having nuclear capability.”

Edwards also joined the chorus of misinformation linking Iraq with Al Qaeda: “The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”

Hot on the campaign trail, Edwards constantly rails against George W. Bush. However, a few years ago, he was encouraging him, pointing to the example of Bush Sr.: “The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush’s father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.” Edwards also joined in with Bush’s “Axis of Evil” rhetoric: “I mean, we have three different countries [Iran, Iraq, North Korea] that, while they all present serious problems for the United States – they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”

The fact is, Edwards was not simply “misled” – he actively made the case alongside the Bush and co. for the invasion of Iraq. Despite being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he never read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s ability to attack the U.S. before voting to go to war. Rather, he read a five page summary handed out by the Bush administration, and this was enough to win his vote. Today Edwards is talking the same talk, only this time, in relation to Iran: “At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the U.S. hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse ... 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.”

And again: “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.” Didn’t Bush, Edwards and the rest of Washington already “educate” America in the build up to the wars currently under way in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Edwards goes out of his way to present himself in a “populist” light, as a “man of the people. But the reality is far different. In addition to his stocks in Wal-Mart and United Health it has been reported in a 48-page disclosure form, Edwards and his wife share stocks, bonds and cash holdings with a value between $20.5 million to $60.4 million. This is an increase of several millions from three years ago, when Edwards reported assets of between $14.3 million and $44.7 million.

Much of the Edwards’ money is invested through Fortress Investment, in companies such as Connecticut-based Aircastle, which owns and leases jets. In 2006, Edwards was paid $479,512 for his part-time consulting services at Fortress.

He also has millions invested in a hedge fund that at one point included off-shore tax havens and sub-prime mortgage lenders, which is an out right contradiction of his claims of wanting to close “corporate tax loopholes”, or of helping “home buyers struggling to keep up with their house payments.”

Edwards has gone out of his way to gain the political and economic support of the trade unions, and was the first candidate to be endorsed by a major union. He has done this by speaking in favor of many pro-union legislative questions. But if he is so pro-labor, why has he not called for the repeal of the many pernicious anti-labor laws that are on the books, such as Taft-Hartley? The reason is clear. For all his rhetoric, Edwards and the labor bureaucracy that endorses him are more interested in maintaining the “partnership with the bosses” approach to trade unionism, than actually defending workers’ rights and interests.

Due to the lack of a mass workers’ party in the U.S., many who are honestly seeking a change from the status quo may look at Edwards and think: “He may not be the best, but at least he isn’t Bush and seems to want to improve things.” But Edwards is actually part and parcel of the status quo. He proposes only cosmetic modifications to the system, not the fundamental changes which are necessary to carry society forward out of the madness of capitalism.

On the contrary, he has only good things to say about the capitalist system. “Our free enterprise system also depends on values: innovation, integrity, hard work, and great rewards for honest success.”

Edwards also panders to racist, anti-immigrant sentiment having once said that: “I think there should be fines if they came here illegally, and, this is the controversial part, I think they should learn to speak English.” He is also a strong supporter of “guest worker” programs, and for increasing the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Edwards also voted for the Patriot Act, and supports the starvation embargo on Cuba. As for Venezuela, an Edwards aide had this to say about his boss’ position: “Of course John Edwards rejects Hugo Chavez’s increasingly authoritarian policies.” The same could have been said of Bush, Condoleezza Rice or any number of reactionary politicians, all of whom deeply fear the real power of the working class.

And this is the point after all. Is pro-war, pro-capitalist, millionaire John Edwards a real alternative for workers? From the above, the answer seems clear enough. Far from representing a step toward the political independence of the working class and a radical break with the capitalist system, John Edwards is just a more subtle representative of the bosses’ system. \n","contact":"","link":"www.socialistappeal.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"\r\nMillionaire trial lawyer, one time Senator, and former VP hopeful John Edwards, is now seeking the Presidency. Like the rest of the candidates, he seeks to differentiate himself from Bush and even from many in his own Party, as there is a much-deserved disgust with the political rulers in Washington. But is Edwards fundamentally any different the rest of the bosses\u2019 candidates? Can he really represent the interests of working people? \r\n\r\nThe war in Iraq is by far the biggest question on the minds of most U.S. workers. Edwards has presented himself as an \u201canti-war\u201d candidate, even apologizing for his Senate vote to authorize the war, claiming to have been \u201cmisled\u201d by the Bush administration. But let\u2019s not forget the facts: in the march to war, the donkeys marched right alongside the elephants.","numcomment":2,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2007\/09\/207789.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":207800,"heading":"Edwards Veers Hard Right, Supports Escalating Middle East Conflicts","article":"Edwards Veers Hard Right, Supports Escalating Middle East Conflicts\r\n\r\n\u201cAs 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.\u201d - John Edwards\r\n\r\n\u201cEducated\u201d Or Brainwashed?\r\n\r\nEdwards Veers Hard Right, Supports Escalating Middle East Conflicts\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/baltimorechronicle.com\/2007\/012907CARMICHAEL.shtml\r\n\r\n\r\nby MICHAEL CARMICHAEL \r\n\u201cThis week, during a speech at the Herzliya Conference, a major international gathering dedicated to Israeli security and diplomatic issues, Edwards stuck to his hawkish positions on Iran.\u201d\u2014The Jewish Daily\/Forward \r\nJohn Edwards promised to be a progressive candidate, but he now appears to be a devotee of the Democratic Leadership Council who is obviously under the heady ether of the Israel Lobby.\r\nIn a shocking development, John Edwards cast aside his progressive veneer and veered to the hard right to support the escalation of Bush\u2019s wars in the Middle East to engulf Iran. \r\nDuring a lamentable speech he made to an audience assembled in Herzilya, a city named for the founder of Zionism that is located a mere 20 miles from Tel Aviv, Edwards sanctioned a U.S. war against Iran, denied the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) and bashed the Palestinian people.\r\nAccording to a report on the website TotallyJewish.com, John Edwards proclaimed his support for the neoconservative agenda of the Israel Lobby, and he even echoed the bellicose rhetoric of George Bush vis-\u00e0-vis Iran \u2014 \u201cHinting to possible military action.\u201d Edwards has now become the official candidate of the Israel Lobby for the Democratic presidential nomination.\r\n\r\nIn his speech before the Herzilya Conference, John Edwards echoed the neoconservative ideology of George W. Bush, who is threatening to bomb Iran. In Israel, Edwards is now regarded as a strong supporter for American military intervention in Iran and the de facto expansion of the war in Iraq that would then engulf Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in a flaming arc of war, terrorism and ultra-violence. \r\nIn taking this position, Edwards is now in direct conflict with the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate, where both Senator Joe Biden and Majority Leader Harry Reid have promised to set in motion a constitutional crisis if Bush orders U.S. forces to expand the Iraq war into Iran. Edwards\u2019 position on Iran even places him to the right of Bush\u2019s newly installed Secretary of Defense, William Gates, who warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the expansion of the Iraq war into Iran would have \u201cdevastating consequences,\u201d for American diplomacy. \r\nAdditionally, Edwards criticized Syria for not doing enough to prove they are serious about negotiating the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for their help in fostering peace between Israel and the Palestinians and stabilizing the increasingly turbulent situation inside Iraq. Edwards\u2019 position on Syria places him to the right of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton ISG that recommended negotiations with Syria for the resolution of both the war in Iraq and a peace settlement with Israel. \r\nTo top those blunders, Edwards then criticized the Palestinians for democratically electing the Hamas government. \r\nIn the same disastrous speech, Edwards refrained from criticizing Israel for withholding hundreds of millions of dollars of the Palestinians\u2019 funds and creating chaos among the already deeply repressed population. Israel\u2019s deliberate withholding of the Palestinians\u2019 funds exacerbated the already dreadful conditions in the Occupied Territories and the Gaza Strip where the United Nations describes Israel\u2019s harsh repression of the Palestinian people as one of the most egregious violations of human rights in the world today. \r\nAt no time in his entire career has John Edwards ever publicly expressed any concern for Israel\u2019s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither has Edwards criticized Israel for its refusal to acknowledge the existence of her powerful nuclear arsenal that is known to contain over 200 armed nuclear warheads, making her either the third or fourth most powerful nation on earth. \r\nWhile John Edwards has capably expressed his support for deconstructing the U.S. war in Iraq, he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch a U.S. attack against Iran.\r\nIn a statement that tacitly condoned Israel\u2019s repressive policies: targeted assassinations, house demolitions, military attacks on civilian targets, detentions of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, and the persistent violation of the human rights of the Palestinians, Edwards proclaimed his allegiance to the agenda designed by the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). In their now well-known paper, two highly distinguished American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, exposed AIPAC as the political core of the Israel Lobby. While John Edwards has capably expressed his support for the deconstruction of the premiere project of the Israel Lobby \u2014 the U.S. war in Iraq \u2014 he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch their next foolish enterprise: a U.S. attack against Iran. \r\nThe fact that Edwards condones the humiliating violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people places him far to the right of former President Jimmy Carter, whose latest book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is now soaring at the top of the bestseller lists in America. All of this inconsistency with Edwards\u2019 pledge to uphold human rights is deeply disappointing. Edwards\u2019s neoconservative attitudes will be a major disappointment to his erstwhile supporters in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. \r\nEdwards promised to be a progressive candidate, but he now appears to be a devotee of the Democratic Leadership Council who is obviously under the heady ether of the Israel Lobby. \r\nSenators Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and Hillary Rodham Clinton declined to address the Herzliya Conference, but Edwards was joined by three Republicans: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in addressing the conference of right-wing Israelis by satellite. \r\n \r\nMichael Carmichael is a historian and author based in Oxford, England, UK. He is the founder and chief executive officer of planetarymovement.org. This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author. \r\n\r\nReferences: \r\n\u00b7\tEdwards: Iran Threat Serious\r\n\u00b7\tThe Israel Lobby\r\n\u00b7\tHomage to Herzliya \/ The Lobby wants war with Iran\r\n\u00b7\tBush sanctions force against Iranian agents\r\n\u00b7\tThe hidden cost of free congressional trips to Israel\r\n\u00b7\tRemarks of John Edwards to the 7th Herzliya Conference \r\n\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\r\n\r\nJohn Edwards remarks at Herzliya Conference 2007\r\n\r\n\r\nSenator John Edwards, Head, One America Committee; Candidate for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination \u2013 via satellite \r\n\r\nMonday, January 22nd 2007 \u2013 via satellite, 20:00 Dinner Session \r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/www.herzliyaconference.org\/Eng\/_Articles\/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223\r\n\r\nShula Bahat, Associate Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, introducing Edwards: The AJC is a global, international American Jewish organization working all over the world. We are a nonpartisan NGO and we do not endorse any candidate. It is important for you to know that. Earlier today there were some questions about the erosion of Jewish support. My viewpoint is that America is different. This does not mean that it will remain this way. Israel enjoys bipartisan support, and the Jewish organizations are here to ensure that this support continues. \r\nThe issue at hand today is the Islamic totalitarianism as reflected by Iran. I do believe that there is a grassroots affinity toward Israel based on a shared sense of the threats articulated after 9\/11. Getting involved in the body politic of the United States is common activity of all Americans, not just Jews. Jews are not different in that regard, but are respected for their representation in all parties in the US.\r\nI am proud to present to you Senator John Edwards. \r\nSenator John Edwards:\r\nIt\u2019s a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this conference which has played an important role in bringing people together from all walks of life. The Herzliya Conference is a great forum for what is happening in Israel.\r\nI am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges. \r\nThroughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats. \r\nWe also need to remember the three soldiers and their families for whom it is well past time for their return home. They are a symbol of the extraordinary challenges facing Israel and Middle East. One source of strength is the bond between Israel and the United States, which is a bond that will never be broken. For more than half a century both countries have benefited from this alliance. We share common values such as freedom and democracy. I was in Israel in 2001 and I\u2019ll never forget just as I was ending my visit, a Hamas suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt blew up the Sbarro pizzeria. It made an impact on me to see the extraordinary sacrifice made by the Israeli people everyday. They continue to make sacrifices to ensure your security and achieve peace. I saw firsthand the threats you face every day. I feel that I understand on a very personal level those threats. The challenges in your own backyard \u2013 rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction \u2013 represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel. \r\nAt the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn\u2019t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president\u2019s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats. \r\nOnce Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel\u2019s neighborhood much more volatile. \r\nIran must know that the world won\u2019t back down. The recent UN 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 \u2013 ALL options must remain on the table.\r\nThe war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel\u2019s border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel. \r\nI cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap. Syria needs to go long way to prove it is ready for peace. It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.\r\nWhile Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn\u2019t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace. \r\nIsrael can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas. While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel. \r\nOutside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement. The US and Europe need to ensure that money going to the Palestinians does not go to lining the pockets of terrorists. For peace, Israel needs a partner.\r\nAbsent this partnership, Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel\u2019s military strength, diplomatically and economically. The hurdles are clear.\r\nFor too long, the current US administration\u2019s commitment to this issue has been halfhearted. Now, on the backdrop of Iraq, they have tried to bring the two sides together. This is especially significant since they have squandered America\u2019s moral authority in the Middle East and around the world.\r\nWe should be finding ways to upgrade Israel\u2019s relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO\u2019s mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel. \r\nYour challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you. \r\nQuestion and Answer:\r\nCheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: 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?\r\nA: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.\r\nAs to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran. \r\nAs 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.\r\n \r\n\r\n","author":"Radical Judao Fascism","parent_id":207789,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-09-26 22:15:24","modified":"2013-11-11 00:49:51","fileurl":""}]}