The John Edwards campaign has already provided lots of enjoyment for us this year, and promises even more for the foreseeable future. The candidate sets a record with his most recent flip-flops on how to deal with Iran. First we have a report in the entertainment rag Variety, of all places, dated January 19, 2007, relaying something that Edwards had told a group of supporters at an event at the Endeavor Talent Agency in Beverly Hills, Calif. the previous week (fyi: Edwards has pulled out the old "I didn't say that" line, quickly followed by "that's not what I meant"- but the Variety reporter stands by his account):The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.Fast forward a little over a week from that event, and let's go overseas to a speech Edwards gave at the Herzliya Conference in Israel on January 22nd, 2007:
Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.Now let's look at an article in today's New York Sun, Edwards Talks of Nonaggression Pact with Tehran, reporting on an appearance made by Edwards last night on "Nightline":
...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. 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 – ALL options must remain on the table.
In an interview set to air on ABC's "Nightline" last night, the 2004 vice presidential nominee was asked whether he would declare that America "will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran."Let's again go back about 35 days to that speech that Edwards gave in Israel. Before he said that the the world (which I assume he is a part of) would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, he praised Ariel Sharon and said that he agreed with Sharon's position that "a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats". The Senator then went on to say "The Iranian president's 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". Now how do those statements reconcile with his statement last night or in Beverly Hills? Answer - they don't.
"I'm just not willing to say that," Mr. Edwards replied, according to a transcript provided by the network. "I know it's a great question to ask a candidate or the president of the United States. ... Iran having a nuclear weapon is not an acceptable thing, but the question is how do we go about, in a responsible way, preventing them from having a nuclear weapon."
Three different positions in a little over one month! John Edwards makes Hillary and Bill look like truthsayers. I hope he stays in this race for a while.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Where is the flip flop? Edwards is correct in stating tha Isreal shouldn't be the answer nor should it be the United States as a lone ranger. This a problem facing the entire world just like the N. Korean situation.
Mark at 6:32PM on Feb 27th 2007
2. Thank you, Mark. You said it just right - where's the flip-flop?
At least this "wonderful" article showed us how far the press and/or the other party will go to find fault even when there is none.
Let's see. Israel. Bomb? No. Iran. Bomb? No.
Talk with perceived enemy. Yes. What am I missing here?
Sally at 7:43PM on Feb 27th 2007
3. When it comes to being president John has my vote all the way . He is the best man for the job ,there is just to much hipe going on with the rest of the group.
Carolyn Kuhl at 7:52PM on Feb 27th 2007
4. Edwards, the former ambulance-chasing attorney, sounds like the usual candidate, saying what is important to the people currently in front of his microphone in the proper context, while the press tries their best to stir up controversy by misquoting him. This is high sport during the campaign season! :-)))
Sam Fairchild at 8:09PM on Feb 27th 2007
5. How fast can The Stump apologize?
There is NO FLip Flop here. Why don't you bother another candidate. Yes, John Edwards will stay in the race for more than "a while."
John Edwards will win!
imelda at 8:10PM on Feb 27th 2007
6. I fear our current trend toward a military confrontation with Iran. There is nothing wrong with diplomacy in this very dangerous situation. Diplomacy could even involve our president asking permission from the Iranian government to land his 747 in their nation and seek a conference. Yes, Bush would have to swallow his pride, and most U.S. citizens would see that as a rare mark in his favor.
Robert C. Jackson at 2:12PM on Feb 28th 2007
7. Everybody know that Mr. Casey is upset because Mr. Edwards wont bang him in the ass. Isnt that right, Pat?
Laura Bush at 8:35PM on Feb 27th 2007
8. If you ask any honest candidate whether Israel having (with U.S. complicity) to bomb Iran to stop the nuclear threat is the closest threat to world peace, they would have to say yes. What else looms more threatening to world peace? Israel has said more than once that Iran with a Nuke is unacceptable. Edward's replies are coherent and thoughtful.
Walter C Ward at 8:51PM on Feb 27th 2007
9. I like Al. But unfortunately, like civil liberties and the world, Gore will never recover from what George W(eapons of mass destruction)did to him in 2000. I strongly feel that Bush planted insiders to keep Gore from letting Bill Clinton campaign for him. With a little boost by the "Sly Fox from Little Rock" Gore would have carried Arkansas, perhaps even his own state of Tennessee, and been the president instead of the "dead duck" that been lame since his first inauguration.
Dr. Johnny Duncan at 11:49PM on Feb 27th 2007
10. Several people have already seen thru the lame attempt to string several different thoughts as a flip flop when at the heart of all the comments was the truth, something too long missing in politics. As far as Edwards being an ambulance chaser, another attempt to rewrite history, go back and actually do some research on the case this man handled, he stood up for patients against big health care companies and hospitals. I'm Republican but I'm willing to vote for the best canidate and of all of them out there now John Edwards is the best in the race.
Ben at 10:48PM on Feb 27th 2007
11. Sorry, but I don't see the flip-flop either.
This is a very difficult situation, and there is nothing conflicting in any of the three excerpts you quote from Edwards. You seem to be at great pains to take him to task for some reason known only to you.
Ron Wilner at 10:34AM on Feb 28th 2007
12. Calling Edwards names, such as an ambulance chaser, seems unfounded. I'm sure someone with his charisma and speaking abilities did well for his clients in court, and had people looking to hire him, rather than the other way around. Name calling, or mischaracterization. is not appropriate in debate. However, if a label truly applies, such as Biden having past incidents in which his honesty was questionable, then that label must be part of the debate.
Lawrence M. Simon at 7:27AM on Feb 28th 2007
13. Maybe your "Breck"man could even go to the middle east and perform some miracles. As he said in the 2004 campaign. "He would help people walk again when he became president". My, my how we forget. It's ambulance-chasing-attorneys like him who helped raise health insurance rates and too many frivolous lawsuits. Why does everyone go after Israel? They need to protect themselves. Yes he is a flip-flopper.
faith believer at 7:47AM on Feb 28th 2007
14. do not apologize for things done in the past. the media will see that as being so/so. not strong
DEBBIE at 3:57PM on Feb 28th 2007
15. A TV commentator recently provided the best description of John Edwards when he referred to him as an “empty suit”. Here is a one term Senator who didn’t run for re-election because he was sure to lose the race, didn’t provide anything to the Al Gore presidential ticket and is, by training, a blood sucking attorney who now wants government to solve every problem he can think of. John, please, do us all a favour … shut up and go home!
Chris at 9:21PM on Mar 1st 2007