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 US 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 a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. ...

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 UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough... 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.

The 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's border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.

I 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.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn't make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel.

.... For peace, Israel needs a partner.

Absent this partnership, Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel's military strength, diplomatically and economically. The hurdles are clear.

For too long, the current US administration's 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's moral authority in the Middle East and around the world.We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel's relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO's mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.

John Edwards at Herzliya Conference, 2007

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
...
This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
...
That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

...It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
...
It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
...
Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.
...
U S Senate,October 10, 2002, pages S10325-S10326.

What we are doing is making a sacrifice in the interest of peace. We make this sacrifice, but we, at least, want to have peace in exchange for it.
Adolph Hitler, January 30, 1941 in defense of his policies against immigrants and Jews

New from John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

SENATOR EDWARDS PROPOSES
HOMELAND INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

February 13, 2003

WASHINGTON-Senator John Edwards on Thursday introduced legislation to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency to replace FBI units that failed to uncover the September 11 terrorists and still cannot find suspected al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

"We need to be smarter to make America safer," Senator Edwards said. "The FBI is the best law enforcement agency on the planet, but September 11 showed how it has failed as an intelligence gathering agency."

Under Senator Edwards' legislation, the new agency would focus on intelligence, not law enforcement. That focus would let the agency do a better job than the FBI has done tracking terrorist operatives in this country and coordinating intelligence with local lAw enforcement officials and other federal agencies. ...
...
The bill to create the Homeland Intelligence Agency is the centerpiece of a series of six homeland security measures proposed by Senator Edwards in the six weeks since Congress convened.
...

SEC. 602. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General or a designated attorney for the Government may make an application for an order or an extension of an order authorizing or approving the undisclosed participation of an official of the Homeland Intelligence Agency, or an agent acting on behalf of the Agency, acting in accordance with guidelines established pursuant to section 123 of Homeland Intelligence Agency Act of 2003, in the activities of a religious or political group or organization as part of an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information or information concerning international terrorism.
...
SEC. 602. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General or a designated attorney for the Government may make an application for an order or an extension of an order authorizing or approving the undisclosed participation of an official of the Homeland Intelligence Agency, or an agent acting on behalf of the Agency, acting in accordance with guidelines established pursuant to section 123 of Homeland Intelligence Agency Act of 2003, in the activities of a religious or political group or organization as part of an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information or information concerning international terrorism.
....