Quote: the G-man said: John Edwards... hawk? At least he is when speaking in Israel
I have to admit, however, its refreshing to hear this from any Democratic presidential contender.
That was two weeks ago.
Now, here is John Edwards speaking to liberal American Prospect reporter Ezra Klein yesterday:
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.
Is this a flip flop? Or is Edwards just being slippery?
When he's talking to an Israeli group, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency.
