CNN

R.C. Granke, Madison, WI:

R.C., get you head out of the snow...Edwards is not who he says he is...9M North Carolinians can't be wrong.

There are a lot of very mean spirited people saying negatives about John Edwards. It's too bad, because their reasoning is not real or accurate. They make very unreasonable comments against the most reasonable presidental candidate. Despicable people.

Ron Paul is right about the CIA, and it's fleshing out.

Right about Iraq.

Right about Iran.

Right about NASHighway.

Right about the Fed.

Right about war propoganda.

Right about blowback.

Right for America Right Now.

Don't keep the same apparatice in power.

Ron Paul is the only one standing up and speaking the truth!

Google Ron Paul.

Vote Ron Paul.

Hey, Chuck:

You Repugnant dittodorks are really good at building up 'straw man' arguments. If some of us are able to see how this report gives further proof of how Bushco never let the facts get in the waqy of their rhetoric, it does not mean that we think that we can now all go out on a picnic with the Iranian leaders. This "youre' either for us or against us" argument is that same BS that fooled most of you so0-called 'patriotic' AMericans to go along with Bushco's illegal war in the first place!

Iran will eventually possess nuclear weapons. Let me repeat that because is seems vaguely enlightening, if not prophetic. Iran will eventually possess nuclear weapons.

The USA does NOT attack nations that possess nuclear weapons.

This is the over-riding reason that Iran or any nation for that matter will pursue a nuclear weapons path.

Does anyone remember India and their acquiring nuclear weapons? Well, they exploded an underground nuclear device and shocked the USA INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY and the world! Who knew? We, that would be the USA, had not a clue that they were working on this technology. Once the shock subsided we attempted to slap their wrist. Then, we sent them all our nuclear experts, armed with the latest nuclear technologies, to assist them in the development of nuclear technologies.

Fundamentally, neither the USA nor our allies, including the UN can stop them, short of starting WWIII.
So, the only question us AMERICANS have to answer is: Do we want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons – good gosh, they may attack us OR NOT! – Or do we want to start WWIII?

Got it?

Thank you for your service to this country John, but nobody WANTS another war. And this is America with an all volunteer military – if you choose to join the military, then, well, you may be called to duty. My point is however, why is this intel estimate taken as absolute fact, when the previous reports are completely discredited? If this report said just the opposite, that Iran had a nuke today, then every liberal in the world would be screaming "LIES!" I just find it interesting that so many people have absolute faith in this estimate (the whole two pages released) but say that the previous NIEs are nothing but Republican lies spun in an effort to lead us to another war. There is an obvious and ongoing threat from Iran – lets not let our guard down just yet.

Hey Chuck and Brad, it must be real easy to want to go to war when you have no idea the cost of it. I am in the US NAVY, Chief Gunner's Mate, and the last thing I want is more WAR. But hey, you guys don't have to fight right? Just like Bush and the GOP, send in american boys to take the bullets and bombs that they themselves deserve. You want this fight....then enlist and go fight it. I dont mean to come off rude, but try to remember that there is a cost.......

Chuck Jax said, Anyone else find it extremely dangerous to dismiss Iran as a threat already?

If you mean dismiss them as a direct threat to mainland United States, I think they're safe to dismiss. Their military can't reach us and couldn't compete with ours if they could. And they're too sensitive to geopolitics to get involved in real terrorism, like blowing up WTC. Regardless whether you define giving bombs to Iraqi insurgents qualifies as terrorism, it's not exactly blowing up the WTC, is it?

If you mean dismiss their ability to hamper our national interests in the middle east in particular and our diplomatic efforts globally, then yes, they can do that, and we'd be foolish to ignore it.

Of course, neither Bush, the NIE, nor any presidential candidate is actually suggesting we do THAT.

Chuck, you and I must be the only ones still a little uneasy about Iran. The liberals think because one report comes out that now Iran is ready to be our best friends. I guess now we can all go back to HAPPY THOUGHTS , right? Group hug guys!

Amazing how so many people conveniently forget the FACT that Iran is supporting and arming terrorist organizations across the world in an effort to hurt our troops and country. But, hey, war makes people uncomfortable, so let's not talk about it anymore.

Mr. Edwards is one funny guy seeing as how the North Koreans managed to get nuclear weapons even though our intelligence didn't say that was going to happen. But hey I guess he trusts the intelligence 100% as long as it backs his view. Too bad a smart man takes everything with a grain of salt and doesn't run around saying I told you so. Smart guys like that usually turn out to be clowns in the end,

Does the fact that Iran ceased its attempt to develop a nuclear weapon change the nature of the activities of the Revolutionary Guard that is described as a terrorist organization? I would bet that if Mr. Edwards was acting as their lawyer, he would point out that the Revolutionary Guard, even if connected to Iran is not Iran.

There must be some conditions that were used to describe the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Their activities either fit into these categories, or they do not and if they do, then that designation is a correct one whther it would have justified U.S. military action or not.

John from VA:
You state: "They have yet to attack any US interests and are only saying what they have a right to do". How can you say this knowing that Iran is directly involved in the killing of US Soldiers and Marines in Iraq? That alone is an act of war. Combine that with a madman in control of their country and its secretive nuclear ambitions, and you have a very dangerous rogue state that needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. They are mastering the most difficult element of creating a nuclear weapon in front of the entire international community. Once the uranium enrichment is done, its only a matter of months before a weapon could be made. This is the time to increase the pressure – not back off, stick our heads in the sand and hope they don't restart their weapons program on a whim.

If you think John Edwards' 'sweetness and light' approach to relations with Iran would benefit the USA, think some more. The government of Iran headed by militant muslims has already identified the USA as a future target along with Israel. Don't let yourself by fooled by sweet talk.

Hey INDEPENDENT IN IOWA,

All I have seen you post on this board are anti-Obama, and anti-Democrat views. I don't think that makes you an independent, I think it makes you a Republican. Don't worry, maybe you'll get a chance to vote for Jeb Bush in 2012...

Throughout the campaign we've clearly learned that Hillary Clinton is far too polarizing and Barak Obama far too timid to win in a general election. Before caucusing or voting, Democrats should imagine how brutally the Republicans would exploit those shortcomings if either of these people were the nominee.

John Edwards is the only candidate of the top three that can win. He's provided a detailed plan on every issue, and is tough as nails. Clinton and Obama elevate our hopes for gender and racial equality, but would break Democrats' hearts in November.

I am not voting for Mr. Edwards but he has a few good points. I am a simple man, but informed. The way I see this Iran thing is:
1. They as a sovereign nation and an original member in 1968 of the IAEA along with many other countries that stated they are allowed to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
2. They have yet to attack any US interests and are only saying what they have a right to do. We would do the same thing as a country if we were an original member of a treaty and then years later, we were told that we could not do it any more because we MIGHT be a threat in the future. I wish I had Bush's all seeing, all knowing crystal ball!
3. The ONLY justification for war would be if their technology got out or we were attacked either on our shores or overseas.

-I look at it like this. My sons likes to goof of in school every now and then as most 6th grade boys do, but does that mean I can discipline them before they do anything wrong?
“Dad, why are you spanking me? Well, son, I think you are going to goof off tomorrow so I am getting you ahead of time.” That is what Bush and the GOP is trying and wants to do.
4. Bush and the GOP will stop at noting to get another crony elected. He was told in August that the status of Iran might change, but he went ahead and made the “WW 3” comment anyway. Why? To scare us? Only to make his case for another WAR.
5. The GOP scares me more than Iran does. Iran has never taxed me to death. Iran does not invade my daily life with war talk and beating the war drums.
6. I care about this country, and the problems we have HERE; not some third world nation that has done nothing to me as of yet or that might or might not have these weapons.

I know most of you think I am a nut, but that is the way I see it. I hope you see what I am trying to say.

"The assessment was a reversal from a 2005 assessment that said that Iran was actively developing a nuclear weapon."

Either the NIE was WRONG in their 2005 assessment or Bush's policy regarding Iran was RIGHT and caused the reversal.

Posted By L, NY : December 7, 2007 8:58 am

Well, L, Apparently you DIDN'T READ THE REPORT! The current version states that Iran's atom bomb project was halted in 2003...WAY before Bush started upping his rhetoric on Iran.

You are wrong, Bush had NOTHING to do with it...neither did Senator Clinton's vote to label Iran's Qhuds force a terrorist organization, alhtough they'd both like you to believe the opposite.

Try READING and doing your own research once in a while rather than just listening to what these lying politicians (on both sides) say on Fox/CNN news...you bought their load of crap hook line and sinker.

I don't think anyone is dismissing Iran as a potential threat, but potentially invading a country because we are told that they have WMDs, when in fact the country doesn't have WMDs,is the biggest threat we face out of Iran. We are the threat to ourselves. Something tells me that invading a country under false pretenses might not be a good idea, but you know, I wouldn't know because I've been living under a rock for the last 5 years.

Seriously though, is that all it takes? Bush says there is a new big bad enemy out there and he is the only one who can fight it, and people just eat it right up, even after all we've gone through . Adults are behaving like children. At least Edwards got it right the second time around. The real leader is Obama though, who read the intelligence estimates about Iraq before the Iraq War and made the right call then based on the information we had collected rather than the rhetoric Bush was spewing. Hillary still hasn't learned from her mistakes and thats the type of experience that will lead us nowhere.

I concur with Edwards, however, I am willing to go even further, where is the proof that Bush's attitude towards Iran had any thing to do with the suspension of their nuclear weapons program.

It has been pointed out the there were 130,000 American troops in Iraq and this was reasoning for Iran to back away from their nuclear weapons program, I doubt it. However, Saddam had maintained his fantasy WMD personna to hopefully preclude Iran, his sworn enemy from reigniting the war between their two countries. Must have done a pretty good job after all he fooled Bush. Why is it so hard to believe that with the ouster of Saddam, the Iranian government no longer felt the need to spend large amount of money to develop a weapon that they no longer needed with out the threat of a nuclear Iraq and more importantly a Saddam with nuclear weapons.

I find it rather pathetic that it appears there are so many out there that are fixated on Iran. A nation that posses no capablilty to threaten our nation, a nation that we could erase from the face of the earth without a blink of the eye.

It might be time for Americans to wake up and realiaze that we do not have to fear every little pissant nation out there that wants to be more important than they are. It also should be noted that the adminstrations contiuned sabor rattling degrades our international standing and increases Irans standing amounst nation states that do not like us. We are lacking something in this nation in the new millenuim, it is called Statesmanship and diplomacy.

How can I get pretty eyebrows like that yummy Edwards?

YEAH! Let's just forget all about the Iranian government suppling and training terrorist. WE ARE RIGHT.

How many lies does Bush have to tell before you yokels catch on? We are in Iraq only because Bush, Cheney and their pals have created and siezed the opportunity to get rich.

"The assessment was a reversal from a 2005 assessment that said that Iran was actively developing a nuclear weapon."

Either the NIE was WRONG in their 2005 assessment or Bush's policy regarding Iran was RIGHT and caused the reversal.

I wonder if Senator Edwards has any hope of being involved in the next administration, because it will certainly not be #1 or #2 on the ticket.

Anyone else find it extremely dangerous to dismiss Iran as a threat already? It's scary to think that so many people have reached their conclusions from a sentence, extracted from two pages released to the public, of an intelligence report well over a hundred pages long. Perhaps people like Edwards should read all of it before insisting that everything with Iran is just hunky-dory.

Mr. Edwards, I honestly think you would make a very good President but I have only 1 objection to your statements. While you were in the Senate and are now unpopular with the Voting People you basically say I'm sorry that I did that and hammer other Candidates who have made the same vote you did. Bottom line, saying sorry still does not take you vote out of the bucket. Your vote counted. What I'd like to hear is WHY you voted that way rather than try to get a pass by saying I'm sorry.
Thanks in Advance

The NIH report validates nothing. In fact it raises questions about Iran's continuing effort to enrich uranium and its continuing program of building mid-range ballistic missles capabable of carrying a nuclear payload. Either he did not read the full report or his head is so far up his southern region he'll never be able to see the light of day. Just another know-nothing idiot who just loves to hear the sound of his own voice.

We hear ya John. We're just waiting for the dust to settle between Clinton and Obama. When it does it will be you they will see and hear.

By the way, good job on holding back on Clinton. People are too quick to call you negative instead of calling it what it is. POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCES!
Good luck in Iowa it's still wide open to anyone.

Come on people get behind Edwards because the other two are cancelling each other out by being too negative. Besides the media made them what they are. People did not choose them we were led by the media to believe they were the main two to look at.

I intend to make up my own mind and hope others will too.

And if you believe this is news to Bush, as he claims, you really have learned nothing the last 6 years.

This wimp is still running for President?

No it doesn't you pandering fool. Seems with time Bush's move in Iraq is beginning to pay dividends...that is what the NIE report shows.

Hey john Edwrads yes i woundn't vote for anything bush and cheney was for they have brought distrust and dishonor to the american people. in my opinion

Former Senator Edwards is morally bankrupt, factually inaccurate, and a bald faced liar.

The Resolution in the Senate he refers to does not directly address an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program. It's primary purpose was to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. and former Senator Edwards knows that.

He insists on using the resolution as a battering ram against Senator Clinton in his futile efforts to gain traction in the presidential primaries. His has been the most hateful and negative of any of the campaigns.

I voted for him in 2004. He will never get another vote of mine!

John Edwards is phoniest person who has run for the Democratic nomination in the past 20 years. The man voted for the war in Iraq, never saw a free trade agreement he didn't like while he was in the Senate, and otherwise voted like a conservative Democrat while he was a Senator...and then miraculously transformed into a liberal crusader when the winds (read: polls) shifted the other way!!

Don't buy this for a second. He didn't "stand up to Bush and Cheney and the neocons" while he was in the Senate. Why should we think he'll do it now?

Talk is cheap, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Edwards is stretching the facts to say that voting to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was a vote to go to war against Iran.
I'm tired of hearing Edwards and others trying to label the vote as such.
Are you John Edwards, and the others saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not a terrorist organization.
Obama ran and hide from this decision, by conviently missing the vote.

It doesn't justify cowardism, Mr Edwards and that's what you propose.

John Edwards is, at least, the most consistent among the Democratic candidates. His views remain the same and, while he sometimes expounds them in the typical "politico" fashion, he at least cannot be accused of flip-flopping on the issues depending on the audience he's addressing.

What kind of report is this. I want to invite Edwards and Wolf Blitzer to be my guest here in Teheran. Do not mislead people while you nothing on what is going on here in Iran. It is better if you shut up until you come and visit us here.

Gee, wasn't this the same guy who did not read the initial Intelligence Assessment prior to the Iraqi war? Wasn't this the guy who complained that HE did not have the correct security clearance to read IA reports to begin with?

This guy is a moron!

When is CNN going to cover Ron Paul on a daily basis like the other front-runners?

In case you've been living under a rock guys Ron Paul has raised close to $11 million this quarter which is more than the other Republicans. Wouldn't you say that would put him in front-runner status? Or at least top-tier? Huh? Anybody there?

PS – He also has far more intelligent and informed opinions upon the issues than these other clowns.

This is sooo politics.

The NIE report and the Kly-Lieberman non-binding resolution have NOTHING to do with one another. The NIE report speaks of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (or lack thereof); the Kly-Lieberman resolution simply stated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organization (which it is, as it does not always follow the dictations of the Iranian government). The premise of Kly-Lieberman was to make it known to the Iranian government that the U.S. understood the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be in Iraq and to be supplying materials to make IED's (and if they continued such practice, they would be dealt with in IRAQ). No where does this non-binding resolution suggest that the U.S. would invade Iran. No where in the resolution does it mention Iranian nuclear weapons. John Edwards sees a political opening and he's attempting to take it (I suspect they all will...), but he's just wrong. And don't get me started on Obama who conveniently missed the vote in the first place...and please don't say it was Harry Reid....that same night of the vote was the Democratic debate: Obama could have said something then, but he did not...

Talk of growing desperate......., right Edward?

"It means that people like me who spoke up very strongly against Bush and Cheney on their saber rattling"

John, you are desperate to be right about something. But really, you'll never beat Hillary or Obama, so why not cut your losses