The Candidate has Two Faces: Which John Edwards Do You Believe?

"Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran‘s effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we‘re being now." Edwards said Bush‘s reluctance to open diplomatic lines with Iran and Syria was costing the United States in its efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Edwards said the United States should offer a serious package of economic incentives and make it public. He said Washington can encourage Tehran to give up its nuclear enrichment program by promising to give Iran nuclear fuel."

* * *

"The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," Edwards told the Herzliya Conference, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.

n his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "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."

On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.


* * *


So here we have the two faces of John Edwards. Like most politicians he says one thing to a Jewish audience and another thing entirely to his own political base. Which John Edwards is the real one?

It's pretty safe to say that it's the liberal John Edwards who says attacking Iran would be a serious mistake and that we can neutralize the problem with threats of more economic sanctions and promises of economic incentives and nuclear fuel for civilian use (as if we'd be able control this.)

In other words "Let's Make a Deal John."

When asked if we can live with a nuclear Iran, Edwards says, "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...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."

Of course though when John Edwards says "all options are on the table", he doesn't actually mean it to be threatening, he means all options for appeasing Iran are on the table. You want nuclear fuel Mahmood, we'll give you nuclear fuel. You want billions of dollars in aid, we've got it. Come on down to John Edwards' Used Cars and Office of the President.

Like a lot of Democrats (and Republicans), Edwards will do some selective tough talking and selective appeasing, but in their minds it isn't Iran's plan to kill millions of people that is the gravest threat to world peace, but the possibility that Israel might take out Iran's nuclear weapons before the diplomats can buy enough time for Iran to use them or at least blackmail the world with them.

And this is why men like Edwards can never fight a War on Terror. Only negotiate a retreat.