Clark speaking about Iran

[Tom Rinaldo]

The average Congressperson doesn't get as good a briefing as Clark gave to his supporters, off the cuff, in reply to a question asked him during a meeting with voters in Iowa. Note that General Clark continues to defy conventional political wisdom by actually openly talking about the real complexities the United States now faces regarding Iran. He isn't mouthing worn out slogans and carefully rehearsed talking points. Most of all, Clark did NOT back away from potential political land mines. Clark clearly, albeit carefully, laid out the full range of U.S. options regarding Iran's movement toward the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

I found it telling how Wes Clark stated that any rational contingency planning by the United States should consider a scenario under which we would peacefully co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran. That is not politician double talk, and it is not something a politician being guided by focus group polling would dare utter. Conventional political wisdom in the United States is that the question is only HOW to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, not whether Iran MUST be stopped from getting them.

We can live in an idealistic bubble and pretend that major political leaders in the Democratic Party would never support launching a preemptive war against Iran. I don't agree. I think far too many of them have already roping themselves into that position by accepting the argument that Iran can not be dealt with rationally, and that it is flat out impossible for the United States to ever allow Iran to become nuclear armed, under any conceivable circumstances.

Some may be troubled by hearing Clark mention, and not totally rule out, a future military option against Iran, to which I say welcome to the world we live in, rather than the world we want. If you listen to other Democratic leaders, not a single one I know of categorically rules out American use of force against Iran to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Some embrace macho posturing, and some carefully tip toe around saying anything clear at all about possible military action, but none rule out the option. Clark levels with us, which is something you can always count on him to do:

"Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not."

The above was taken from the Clark Podcast; "Common Voices in Iowa"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070

P.S. I just want to note that I realize the above transcript has already been posted elsewhere on DU, but the Subject of the thread that contains it in no way indicates that it contains important discussion related to Iran. I thought some DUers who care about this issue might otherwise have missed this.

[democrank]

1. Thanks for this.

I`m always interested in and never disappointed by what Wes Clark has to say. He`s a fine, fine Democrat.

[bdamomma]

16. I like him and seems to be very genuine.

[blm]

2. There he goes again - Clark speaking in details as if the American people

deserve real answers. Doesn't he know by now that detailed answers can be chopped up and taken out of context?

;)

I RESPECT the detailed answers of leaders who honor the public's need to know MORE not less, and that the answers are NOT simple and need to be processed with all the complexities factored in.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. You put your finger on it

Too many of our leaders filter their comments through a fear screen; fear of how their opponents might twist their words against them. Concern over that is valid of course, we see it happen to leaders we respect all of the time.

However that type of fear can not be allowed to triumph over meaningful discussion between those who want to lead us and the American Public. That type of self censorship is simply throwing democracy out the window to cover your own ass. And I'm giving some politicians more credit than they deserve by even saying the above. Many of them would rather the public NOT really know what they are actually thinking, or who they are beholden too.

[blm]

4. And that is exactly the battle I've been fighting for so long. At this

crucial time in our history, how can anyone want to match the jingoistic soundbite campaigns of the RNC with a left version?

Sometimes Dems lionize the worst of the Republican party and ignore the best trait - they stick up for each other no matter what the truth reveals.

[Totally Committed]

5. Wow... words of wisdom to live by!

What a GREAT post. I could not agree more.

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

8. I dunno, blm...

I agree completely what what the Repubs do is wrong, and it's hurting our country.

But sadly, it works.

Part of me doesn't want to sink to their level. But part of me recognizes that sometimes you really do need to fight fire with fire. If someone were to attack my family with a gun, I wouldn't want to only have a knife. Or worse, pretty words no one will hear. How much more important is fighting for our country and system of democracy? Because I really do believe they're in mortal danger.

[blm]

9. Before Katrina I could see some value in that, but now most people are

looking for competence above all else.

Jingoism can only last so long - and it looks like it has finally worn out its welcome for this cyclical period.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Yes, we have to win, but not by losing our soul in the process

That's a deal with the Devil and the Devil always comes out ahead in the long run with those deals. If the American public is not kept informed, then special interests and media manipulation will lead the public where it choses.

IMHO too many Democratic leaders routinely get bought off by special interests. Small case in recent point, the Internet neutrality regulations fight going on in Congress. Too many Dems are willing to cut a back room deal that hurts grass roots democracy to win favor with the special interests behind stacking the internet in favor of the biggest players on it. Those Democratic legislators didn't think we were paying attention to the details of some "minor legislation". It's how "Healthy Forests" initiatives lead to clear cutting.

The connection for me is simple. If we stop demanding intelligent fact sharing from our potential leaders, we sure as hell won't get it, and we know damn well what we will get instead, both from Republicans AND Democrats.

[PATRICK]

19. Clark is a step beyond the GOP

and it is honest- which they cannot be. This not fighting fire with fire but fake papers with fire. This is not descending to their level but trampling over it like it deserves. This kind of fight and clarity is what we need, not pouring more grease on patchy teflon or imitating liars. It also helps restore confidence that we have a true dialog with the honest minds of our leaders. Disagreements therefore are a lot healthier.

So many politicians show such a woeful lack of positive political skills or wisdom about the negative that it is common parlance that the best thing is to be a "non-politician"! We have failure and fakery not real politics, hover much that has human weakness within its formula. Advantage to the outsider who is the better politician in fact, not reliant on props, lies, dirty money and easy false supports.

[Totally Committed]

15. Let me clarify by saying:

I don't think Wes does this... ever. Those who "want to match the jingoistic soundbite campaigns of the RNC with a left version" are the Liebermans, Bidens, Bayhs, and Hillarys of the Party. Those were whom I felt you were referring when I answered you as I did.

If I was wrong, I retract... if I am correct, I reaffirm.

TC

[Adelante]

6. "welcome to the world we live in, rather than the world we want"

I swear, sometimes I wish he would lie to us and let us be with this truth-telling thing. Not really, but you know what I mean. In the longer run, though, we are better off when we can trust somebody not to pander to our comfort levels.

[Jai4WKC08]

7. "I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it."

This is the biggest question concerning a military option. And this isn't the first time Clark has raised the issue. I've heard him a couple times on Fox, and read reports from other live events, where he's said, if you execute a military option, WHAT COMES NEXT?

The current administration showed us in Iraq that they weren't too keen on spending time and resources to figure out "what comes next." There's no reason to believe they'll be any better at it in Iran if, God forbid, they decide to go that way. I think that's what concerns Clark most, and it ought to scare the hell out of all of us.

I tend to agree with you, Tom, that "far too many of (our Democratic leaders are) already roping themselves into (supporting a preemptive war) by accepting the argument that Iran can not be dealt with rationally, and that it is flat out impossible for the United States to ever allow Iran to become nuclear armed, under any conceivable circumstances."

But I do think we're in a better position than we were in 2002 in one sense. We've heard a few senators (Wellstone, Kennedy, Levin) say they voted against the IWR in large part because of Clark's relatively brief testimony, and that was back when many of them believed Saddam had WMD. Now Clark is a more integral part of the Congressional Democrats' national security policy process. He meets with and speaks to them frequently, and is backed up by both Reid and Pelosi. 'Course, we don't currently have a majority in either house, but with the current attitudes among the American public about Iraq, even some Repubs might be hesitant to go along with another rush to war.

Two things crush my optimism on that front tho.

One, Bush might not feel he needs Congressional approval to attack Iran, or might not care that he does, especially after the November elections no matter which way they go. He doesn't have to worry about re-election anymore, and I think he puts his personal legacy over any concerns about the GOP's future. And even if he's afraid of impeachment, bombing Iran would probably not be an impeachable act. Plenty of presidents have used military force without Congressional approval in the past. Or he might just feel he's gonna be impeached anyway, so why worry about one more charge.

Two, I don't have a lot of confidence that Clark's message is getting out. Most of what I'm hearing from real people, in both parties, is as much in line with the "Iran can not be dealt with rationally, and that it is flat out impossible for the United States to ever allow Iran to become nuclear armed, under any conceivable circumstances" as any Democrat in Congress. Maybe that's because I live in a red state, where even Dems are fairly conservative. But it seems to be what they're being fed thru the media, and for the most part, they seem to be swallowing it. They may not have much confidence in Bush's ability to pull it off, but that doesn't mean they won't support him for trying.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. We have to get the message out, & it doesn't have to be called "Clark's"

Clark never worries much about getting credit for his positions, he's a lot more concerned with getting them accepted. Ultimately we (we as in all elements of the American public) have a certain amount of potential influence over George W. Bush, and whether or not, in a best case scenario where a maximum effort is brought to bear, there is enough of a countervailing influence to stop Bush from attacking Iran, I don't know. But I know one thing, it's important enough that it's worth the effort to try. And that means changing the climate of political debate in this country about Iran.

As it currently stands, we can't even fully count on the Democratic Party to make the arguments that are needed right now, let alone pull the full public behind us against another rushed military misadventure. We are in a dangerous time warp back to 2002, when the saber rattling against Iraq was gathering speed, but too few Democrats gave enough credence to the danger it America that allowing it to go unchecked was bringing.

[Jai4WKC08]

24. It's his message, no matter who proclaims it.

For that matter, it's my message too. And yours, if you want it to be (and I assume you do). I didn't mean "Clark's" in any sense that he owned it exclusively, only that it's the one he's trying to get out. Or one of the ones. LOL--I think I'm confusing myself, so I feel for the rest of you. ;)

I'm don't think I agree with you that we have any influence on Georgie-boy. I think he's taking his marching orders from God. :crazy:

But I think you're right that we are obligated to try. I just despair, because I'm not hearing any real comprehension from people I talk to.

I'm slightly more optimistic than you about the Democratic Party hanging together well enough to try to stop Bush, if such a thing can be done. They don't always articulate why they're doing it so very well. As a result, when Democratic leaders do speak out, too many people seem to think they're just opposed to anything Bush wants to do. The good news is, the people generally don't much mind, because they think so little of Bush. That's a very very different than the situation of 2002, when most people thought he was our great defender from the terra-ist.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I very much respect Wes Clark for his stances on both Iraq and Iran

which he continues to stand by without regard to Domestic political consequences unlike most politicians.

(Listen to the podcast -- http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6070 )

Gen. Clark, as always, analyzes all possible solutions to any problem by taking into consideration circumstances, the common good, and the resulting end game, and provides constructive background information to assist in the public gaining perspective in what may be best in resolving the issue while always keeping an eyes on the big picture; as opposed to advancing his ambitions by attempting to come up with whatever soundbyte he thinks will provide press coverage for himself.

Just like many Democrats politicians want to get out Now of Iraq for Domestic reasons (as some were the same Democrats who previously felt that leaving without a plan would just speed forward Iraq into a bloody Civil War and Iranian domination, while others even voted for the original resolution that gave Bush authorization for war in the first place), others are taking a harder stance on Iran than neccesary for the same domestic audience, sidestepping the fact that the Iran issue is dangerous and will become an eventual "War or Peace" subject (considering how Bush is handling the whole thing as we speak) possibly by 2008, if not sooner.

Personally, I approve of Gen. Clark's steadfast beliefs in discussing "what's best to resolve the specific issues under the present circumstances", as opposed to the "what's best for me to say politically" approach which oftentimes serves mainly in amassing brownie points with a specific political base.

**a side note to those those Democratic politicians who have advocated a drop Dead "Deadline" in their proposed "Iraq plans": As Deadlines dates come and go, understand that calling for various date specific deadlines when one has no control over their implementations is a fruitless exercise that really doesn't "do" much apart from what it "says" to a domestic audience (so what is the real point? e.g., see the Kerry's May 15th Deadline to have Iraqis form a Govt "or else"--they are doing that, but in their own time...and what they are doing has little to do with what Kerry may have proposed...except for those who want to think so--Also see Murtha's 6 month deadline which has also come and gone").

[Adelante]

13. Deadlines never meant anything

Wes got that right.

[FrenchieCat]

28. So why do folks always act as if when a Democrat calls out a date, that

this is the key? What has turned most voters off of Iraq and will make this war come to an end BEFORE the Bush administration would choose is the repetition that this was a war of choice, that there were no WMDs, that it is being ran by incompetents, and that Democracy can't be "manufactured" from the barrel of a gun, that this war has not made us any safer, that people like Cindy Sheehan never got an answer on the Noble Cause issue, that our soldiers are not fighting with the right equipment, that the Bush Cartel literally fixed and exaggerated the intelligence to the public, the continued violence, and the saber rattling with Iran....and of course, and most unfortunately; the death of our soldiers and the enormous cost via our budget.

I don't think calling Deadlines has done a thing to turn public sentiments...

It is now slowly but surely becoming seen as wiser to come out of Iraq in a sensible and rational manner keeping in view the complexity of the entire region; to attempt to cause the least damage as we start to responsibly redeploy....as opposed to running out of there yesterday to please a domestic political audience and using the death of our soldiers as the overiding reason for it.

It's the D+ solution Clark always talks about as opposed to the F solution....and I agree with him, that at this point, it is the best that we can do!

[IA_Seth]

14. Clark in Iowa

Thanks for posting this.

I was actually at this podcast (I asked him about Hamas and Israel, if you listen to the whole thing), and thought this was his best answer to any of the questions that were asked. Articulate, intelligent, and rational. Three things we don't hear much of in the era of extreme politics.

I really think that this simple formula is applicable to almost any situation...How to dissuade. How to live with it if we can't dissuade. What to do if we can't dissuade, and we can't live with it. Clark's ability to connect with the common person, and explain our options in plain, simple English is one of the reasons I would gladly support him in 2008.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Thank you for putting this into words so simply

"I really think that this simple formula is applicable to almost any situation...How to dissuade. How to live with it if we can't dissuade. What to do if we can't dissuade, and we can't live with it. Clark's ability to connect with the common person, and explain our options in plain, simple English is one of the reasons I would gladly support him in 2008."

That's what struck me hardest when I heard it also. Common sense, compelling, over arching logic broken down simply and persuasively enough that even George W. Bush should be able to follow it. We can forget the weekend conferences, or enroll in one for "bonus points" if we want a social weekend. There is the bottom line formula for International Relations crisis management, right there, simply laid out by Clark, in words hard to argue with, to a room full of common citizens (that term used with pride).

Yet too many of our so called leaders get so lost in their own rhetoric that they can not view the world in such a clear cut and emotionally unbiased way.

[IndyOp]

18. On peacefully co-existing with a nuclear armed Iran...

Clark did a very good job with what he said - very, very good.

I would like him to add: If we are to abide by international law then we have *no choice but* to peacefully co-exist with a nuclear armed Iran (if we can't dissuade them). It is against international law to attack another country that has not attacked you. Period.

The US has strayed far - very, very far - from being a law-abiding international citizen. The rest of the world recognizes the US as being an empire led by war criminals for decades.

I *like* a whole lot of what Wes Clark has to say -- I am desperate for someone in the nation to tell the truth about US Foreign Policy ( video and the consequences we are now reaping in the form of terrorism.

Lying For Empire

How to commit war crimes with a straight face.
The lies and war crimes of 8 presidents.




* Introduction
* Chapter 1 - THEY JUST CAN’T STOP THEMSELVES: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
* Chapter 2 - INCINERATION AS DIPLOMACY: HOW TRUMAN TORCHED WHOLE CITIES WITH NUKES TO SCORE POINTS
* Chapter 3 - THE FIRST BANANA REPUBLIC: EISENHOWERS DEDICATION TO DESTROYING DEMOCRACYIN IN GUATEMALA
* Chapter 4 - QUAGMIRE OF DECEIT: JOHNSON AND THE ESCALATION OF THE VIETNAM WAR
* Chapter 5 - WORSE THAN HELL: NIXON PAVES THE WAY TO CAMBODIA WITH BAD INTENTIONS
* Chapter 6 - TOPPLE ONE FOR THE GIPPER: REAGAN AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT
* Chapter 7 - THE GEORGE H BUSH FORMULA FOR THE WAR WITH IRAQ: PREVENT NEGOTIATIONS AT ALL COST
* Chapter 8 - THE EMPIRE AS GOOD GUY: CLINTON KILLS CIVILIANS TO SAVE THEM
* Chapter 9 - FINISHING THE JOB: GEORGE W BUSH AND THE BOMBING OF IRAQ
* Chapter 10 - PSYCHOPATH NUMBER 43

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Let's start with pulling some of the Democratic leaders closer to

what Clark is already saying here. Most of them are afraid to even whisper anything that can be twisted to imply that they are soft on Iran. Let's give Wes a little cover now for going out on a limb already with this statement. We have to move the debate on Iran off of the right of center spot that it currently is rooted in. If someone like Clark can't get backing for taking this type of common sense, talk before shooting and think thrice before starting a war position, folks like you and I can talk all we want to about international law ,and there won't be anyone right of Dennis Kucinich who will pick up seriously on it.

[IndyOp]

21. Wes Clark is plain-spoken and has consistently stated that we must not

attack Iran -- for months. He has appeared on FOX and spoken and published on the topic.

If I am critizing, I hope it is constructive criticism: Gently work in statements about international law. Appeal to the law-and-order crowd by refering to international law and how it is against international law to pre-emptively attack.

Right now - the * administration is once again working up to using the United Nations as cover - to make it look as if a pre-emptive attack is not against the law. But it is.

Clark could be the right man to appeal to the law-and-order Amurkans.

P.S. I waver back and forth about whether what we need is a gradual therapy - moving public attitude a step at a time - or whether we need shock therapy. We could be week(s) from dropping nuclear weapons on Iran with an immediate death toll of 1-3 million. If shock therapy is not appropriate now, when?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I see your argument

Clark does weave in international law into his comments a lot more frequently than most any other leading Democrat. Below I'll post the exchange from the next question during Clark's podcast from Iowa. He brings up the CIA secret prisons among other things.

But quoting international law, in the current MSM manipulated American political landscape, certainly doesn't qualify as shock therapy to stop the next war. That argument gets about as much notice RIGHT NOW as a mosquito bite. Raising the specter of half the Islamic world declaring jihad on America, with tens of thousands of suicide bombers lining up for their belts, is more of the shock therapy approach to getting the publics attention on this quickly.


Here is Question Number Three:

"Panelist #4: It seems like there's many people all over the world both underdeveloped and Western developed areas who are very disappointed with the United States in the last few years. Where it used to be a beacon for rule of law and not, not invading other countries and treating prisoners with a certain amount of respect and respect for world organizations, that now we may still say some of these things, but we don't act them anymore, and we've become a hypocrite. Is there anything that we can do or should we do to try to rectify this position?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The problem is that this is not something you can resolve by talking. The opinion of the United States was formed on the basis of US action. When we fought for Muslims in the 1990s in Bosnia and in Kosova, it was appreciated and understood in the Islamic world. And when we forced nations to sign agreements excusing our soldiers from being charged under the International Criminal Court for possible violations of international law, that was noted. And when we released the photos of Abu Ghraib, and it wasn't just the photos, it was people understood what was happening at Abu Ghraib, It was a lot of shameful humiliation of Iraqis there. That was noted. People knew that torture was going on, and we don't believe in mistreatment of people. We don't know what's happening in the secret CIA prisons, for example. I'm pretty sure that the story in the Washington Post that revealed them was, was true. I've never seen these secret prisons, and the US hasn't admitted it, but I'm sure that they wouldn't have been so upset about it if they didn't actually exist. If you have prisons that are secret, you must be having them secret for a reason. If you won't let the International Red Cross interview prisoners, there must be a reason for that. What are we doing to these people that we're ashamed to let people know?

I have to tell you, I'm ashamed as an American that we can't live up to the values we've professed. I never believed, when I was a soldier, I was in uniform fighting to protect a government that tortured its prisoners - or let's say we don't support torture, we use stressful interrogation. I believed that the best way to treat people was to treat them humanely. In the military, we always taught the five S's. When you take a prisoner you search them, you secure them, you seize any documents and other intelligence related material that's on them, you safeguard them, and you speed them to the rear. None of that in there says you abuse them in some way. Of course you'd like to get immediate information of battlefield utility, and if you talk to people, maybe they will give you that information. But after you've captured them and sent them to the rear, the best way to get reliable information is to persuade them that they should want to talk to you. And the best way to do that is with unexpectedly humane treatment, not through abuse. So, all of these matters have caused the United States to lose the respect of some throughout the world. And you can't win the War on Terror unless you make more friends than enemies, and we haven't done that. That's the responsibility of this administration. It starts at the top with leadership that understand what the realities are in the international community and put together real strategies for success, not just strategies that appeal to one slice of US domestic opinion."

[welshTerrier2]

22. what i would most want to hear

implicit in all this discussion is the rather obvious point of view that the Iranians don't like the US and that we don't trust them ...

hearing the "US side" is easy ... there's been a steady drumbeat about Iran supporting terrorism or threatening Israel and frequent references to the fact that those "radical fundamentalists" took Americans hostage back in the 70's ...

what I would most want to hear (has Clark spoken about this?) is an analysis of why the Iranians don't like the US ... after hearing their case, it seems we Americans would be wise to evaluate their opinions and decide whether we should, or should not, change our policies ... sometimes the way to avoid a fight and reduce the dangers is to change your own conduct ... i didn't see that reflected as a "fourth" option in what Clark spoke about in this speech ... perhaps that wouldn't be a politically popular alternative to a country that always seems to see us as the good guys and those wacko towelheads as the bad guys ...

Clark's three other ideas were right on the money ... Democrats in the Senate are not showing any national leadership on this issue at all - at least none that i've heard ... at a minimum, they need to pre-empt bush's march to war by demanding that he return to the Congress for authorization ... bush has no intent to do that ... his argument is that the IWR has authorized him to do whatever the hell he wants to do ... if Democrats wait until the bombers are in the air, they will be "non participants" - that's just not the kind of leadership the country needs ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I agree with you WT2, at least some of that perspective

should be in the mix. Most reasonable people can see the point in viewing things from the other guy's perspective, to a point at least, so long as they don't suspect that you are taking up the "other guy's" side against America anyway.

I know I've read or heard Clark make some mention of what you suggest, but it may have been scattered through a number of statements and media appearances. It would take me some digging to look for. I don't have time for that right now, I have to prepare to attend a local political event tonight, but I will try to look when I get a chance.

[FrenchieCat]

26. There are many reasons that Iran doesn't "trust" or much like the

U.S. Government, going back in history. I have heard of Clark speak of those reasons....including the installment of the Shah in Iran.

I will try to locate some quotes of when he talked about that, if I can.....

I did locate a more recent list of reasons why Iran may not "like" the U.S. Government in part, according to Wes:

"we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm
--------------

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Maybe you build this thing up over a period of time but this has been an opportunity that we've passed by for years. We spoke strongly about the need to put the right government in place in Iran. We basically, our government, tried to interfere in their election. We probably are responsible to giving Ahmedinejad some measure of support because voters don't like it, in whatever country they are, when foreigners try to interfere in their election. We may not think they had a real election. We may not approve of their democracy but people in Iran believe that they voted for Ahmedinejad so what we have to do is we have to decide what we as Americans want to do to pursue what we believe is in our interests. If we only use the stick on Iran, then it's going to be difficult to move the issue, in a constructive way, in the near term. So we need a combination of dialogue and pressure.
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/8
-------------

I would encourage the United States leadership right now, this week, before March, before it goes to the United Nations Security Council, immediately to talk to the Iranian government. Iran has been a -- it's a great nation. It's 60, 70 million people with a tremendous heritage, and we've got a wonderful Iranian-American community. And the policy that we've pursued toward Iran for the last five to 10 years, no matter what the historical antecedents were or our anger at 1979 and the hostages, still, it's a policy that hasn't served American interests.

We should be doing business -- we should have been a long time ago doing business with the Iranian business community. We should have worked with them. We worked with East Europe when it was under communist domination, and it was one of the key factors that helped East Europe throw off an outmoded set of ideas. We need to be working in the Middle East to help their business communities move past old ideas.

So right now what we need to be doing is talking to Iran -- right now, this week.
http://securingamerica.com/node/607

[liberalpragmatist]

27. Great analysis

I'm glad to hear him speak on this. There's very little actual debate over Iran. You have on one hand, lefty bloggers and DU-types who simply (but justifiably) say "no war" and you have most of the pols in Washington and the pundits who act as if there's no other option but military power. I'm glad Clark is talking sense about this. I hope that he forms an integral part of the Democratic national security team in the next Democratic administration - that is, if he's not leading the next Democratic administration.

[Donna Zen]

29. Being a part vs leading

As a part of any administration gives one a voice, but not thee voice. (void for the cheney-exception) And that's problem as I see it. Even Secretaries of Whatever with great ideas end up having to listen to presidential advisors' claptrap. If you don't agree...well, just ask Paul O'Neill.

There is no guarentee that a president who is dependent on unelected national security advisors will do the right thing. Clark's thinking is more rare, even among Democrats, than the world needs.

[pa28]

30. Kick for sanity and thoughtful analysis.

Oh to have the grownups in charge again.

[jerry611]

31. Can Iran and Israel peacefully co-exist?

If not, neither can we.

The Iranian president, who claims the holocaust did not occur and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, made a statement the other day that they will talk with any nation except for Israel.

I seriously believe Iran is going to one way or another start a war with the Israelis. And that is going to destablize the entire region.

[BigYawn]

42. Answer is NO!!!! Iran and Israel can not co-exist..

Not so long as the Ayatollah's are in control in Iran.
Which is why you will soon see a regime change coming
up in Iran, with military force, similar to Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

32. Military option should *NOT* be on the table. Clark's contradictions

What should be discussed, and totally missed by Clark (from what i can see here, at least, maybe the full broadcast is better), is the fact that it is our ally that has introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East. In fact, Israel has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. It has also been an aggressor in a number of wars against its neighbors. Why is it not proposed a totally nuclear-free Middle East? Why the double standard?

Second, we should be leading the way toward nuclear disarmament, and dismanteling our own nuclear weapons. Instead we are busy modernizing them and threatning nations like Iran.

In this context, with a threatning neighbor and a even more belligerant superpower, isn't it quite rational from their point of view to get nukes? Maybe they would get some respect, and they would not share the same fate as the Iraqis, with US soldiers occupying their country and wantonly killing civilians.

[BigYawn]

43. Clark is right in backing Israel as a nuclear deterrent in a sea of Arabs

[Tom Joad]

48. Nuclear deterrent? Or nuclear threat?

sometimes to hear talking heads on tv, Arabs are made to sound like parasites, no better than cockroaches (as Israeli leaders are apt to describe Palestinians). So i find the "sea of Arabs" unpleasant, just sounds like instead of being considered people, they are looked at as a threat, a menace, and something less than human, although you probably did not intend it that way.

I don't understand why it does not make sense to treat all people and nations equally. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty gave any nation the right to use nuclear energy. Iran cannot be condemned for pursuing that, or it should not be singled out for that, while other nations develop nuclear technology for energy use (which i never thought was a good idea anywhere).

We need to treat all nuclear weapons with the same and equal contempt, as a threat to all of us. It does not matter if it is France, Russia, or the US, the future of mankind demands we do away with these things. For the moment, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That must be addressed. Let's keep that option on the table.

[BigYawn]

53. In an ideal world you are right, in real world you are naive...

The arabs have ALREADY attacked Israel twice. 1967 was the
first attack. Now the Arabs have a lot more money, more
sophisticated weapons etc. The only thing stopping them from
wiping Israel off the map is the powerful nuclear arsenal
Israel has. Which is why I call it DETERRENT.

In an ideal world, I agree 100% with you that all nukes should
be destroyed. Problem is US can not unilaterally destroy our own
nukes unless there is 100% guaranteed inspection to confirm every
other nuclear power has done the same. India and Pakistan are not
even signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. Both refuse to
go non-nuclear under any circumstances. Actually that has worked
to avoid war breaking out for the 4th time between them. So again
it has worked as a deterrent.

Now why not let Iran have nukes in fairness...just listen to their
leaders such as Ahamedinejad. They have openly declared destruction
of Israel as a goal. Without nukes they can never do it. With nukes,
who knows. Do we really want a nuclear holocaust to breakout in the
middle-east? If not, then Iran can not be allowed to have nukes.

[ConsAreLiars]

55. I like Clark, but that "sea of arabs" shit makes me wonder

who I'm associating with. What a vicious, racist comment.

(On edit) I see you oppose Clark becoming the nominee. Your comment makes more sense now. He is not a racist, he would never use a phrase like "sea of arabs," and the fact that you do not want him as a nominee is entirely understandable. I feel better now.

[Clarkie1]

46. Only a fool doesn't put all options on the table.

Including entertaining the idea of living with a nuclear Iran if that is the best option. This is a situation, like Iraq, that is not static. It is constantly evolving. Clark is right, we need to be thinking about all the options so that when it comes time to make decisions down the road we can choose the best option for the time and circumstance. Right now, we need to be talking directly to the Iranian leadership.

[Tom Joad]

49. Is all out nuclear war on the table too? Call me a fool for wanting

to keep that off the table. I just pray there are enough of us.

[Clarkie1]

50. Yes, you put it on the table and consider all the ramifications...fully.

Best way to prevent the unthinkable from happening is to think about what would happen...fully.

[Tom Joad]

51. Why no discussion of the only nuclear state in the Middle East?

Iran has no nuclear weapons.

And shouldn't the options be limited to rational ones?

[Clarkie1]

52. You determine the rational options by considering all options,

even those deemed "irrational." It is by this method that more support can be garnered for the best available option. I think Israel should be discussed. What would you like to discuss about Israel? How we can disarm their nuclear weapons? O.K...let's begin that discussion. You start...what do you propose?

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. I pray there are enough of us to stop war with Iran also

But Clark is not the person who needs to be pressured here. There is an element of attacking the messenger for the message at play. Clark has been continually calling for direct talks with Iran for over a year. Clark is the Democratic leader most persistently pointing to all the dangers inherent in any attempt to use a military option against Iran. And with these comments, Clark is the first Democratic leader with the courage to clearly say that the United States needs to openly consider the option of peacefully coexisting with a nuclear Iran. I know of few leading Democrats who are taking the first position, I know of very few leading Democrats who are speaking about the second point, and I am at a loss to name a single other leading Democrat with the courage to make the last point that Clark made here.

Has John Kerry said the United States should consider peacefully coexisting with an Iran that gains nuclear weapons? Has Al Gore said so? Has either John Edwards or Russ Feingold gone that far? What about Howard Dean, or Marc Warner, or Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden, or Evan Bayh, or Bill Richardson? Many of these leaders have little if anything to say about Iran today, aside from worn out cliches about Iran "needing to respect the will of the international community". Some are staking out positions that edge to the Right of Bush's.

I can't prove it, because these things are done in such a way as to make it difficult to prove, but I suspect that the "revolt of the Generals" against Rumsfeld had a lot to do with fears inside the military that Bush and company are pushing for another war, this time against Iran. Wesley Clark has been those retired Generals strongest defender. I don't know if you heard the podcast Clark did defending their right to speak up, and their personal honor and courage to step forward into certain condemnation, to call for Rumsfeld to step down when they did. You should listen to it. Clark is passionate about it.

I can't prove that Wes Clark had a lot to do with helping organize or at the very least facilitate that wave of stunning military protests from behind the scenes, but I believe he did. Those men all know each other. Clark was the trailblazer among them, in going public against Bush as forcefully as he did when he did starting in late 2002. Seymour Hersh is on record saying that the Joint Chiefs of Staff attempted to and failed to get Rumsfeld to pull the nuclear option against Iran off of the table. The public spotlight for the Generals call for Rumsfeld to resign focused on his poor execution of the War in Iraq, and Rumsfeld's failure to listen to military advice he received about how to fight that war. But the timing for that call screams out "Iran" to me.

By all means take a more forceful position against possible war with Iran than Clark has taken here, but please pull some of the other Democratic leaders at least half way toward embracing the caution and the realism about the consequences of such a war that Clark has expressed, before pinning any blame on him. The blame is on all of us for allowing this drift to war to happen without speaking up. Clark IS speaking up. He IS calling it wrong. He IS offering alternatives. So many activists on Democratic Underground lately keep looking to Al Gore for leadership, but no one either can or will explain to me what Gore's position on Iran is now. Why aren't we forcing all of our Democratic leaders to debate this matter now, while there is still time to do so?

On this thread some have defended Israel's need for security against Iran, and that of course is part of it. Whatever your own personal view of that issue is, the current reality is that the United States government, including the United States Congress with very strong majorities in both parties, strongly stands behind Israel's right to exist, and further stands ready to act in a range of possible ways to defend Israel's right to exist if that is seriously threatened. Different people differ on the standard to be applied to determine when Israel is being "seriously threatened", but the concept of needing to defend Israel is firmly entrenched in American politics. That is reality whether or not you think it wise or even handed. You do not find either Democratic or Republican leaders speaking harshly of Israel, except on rare occasion regarding a specific incident.

The best thing we can do for Israel's security now, in my opinion, is act to deescalate the growing tensions between the United States and Iran. Our program for "regime change" in Iran is pushing Iran toward wanting and needing nuclear weapons, and toward greater Iranian animosity toward all western interests, and that includes Israel. Our fixation with calling Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" undermines any non military influence the United States or our allies may possibly have to defuse tensions in that region of the world. Calling for direct U.S. Iranian dialog is an excellent first step now toward reducing the animosity that feeds those tensions. Clark needs our backing on this now to make this happen.

[tishaLA]

33. It can't be said enough

He IS brilliant and he IS perhaps the most important voice in the future of our party.

[BigYawn]

34. As brilliant Clark is, he has ZERO chance of becoming president...

the powers to be in democratic party will not allow it.
Hillary will be your nominee....lets get behind her instead
of wasting energy of people such as gen. Clark who is a very long
shot at best.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Well, even if Clark is a long shot.....I think that whatever he can add

to a debate on Iran...is of some comfort to me....that we are not all gonna be in lockstep on our way to Iran!

Somebody's got to do it.

MLK once said....""Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetuated by the vitriolic action of those who are bad, it is also perpetuated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good."

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong

And IMHO, it is wrong on both counts. And dangerously wrong at that. "the powers to be in democratic party will not allow it. Hillary will be your nominee....lets get behind her instead". I will never give up on wanting to live in a Democracy so easily, or so complacently. If Hillary gets the nomination you can talk to me about getting behind her then. Meanwhile you are offering up surrender to "the powers that be" now as if were anti-American to support who or what one really believes in, over two years from the next Presidential election, and almost two years from the first Presidential Primary.

No one is bashing Hillary on this thread. Clark didn't attack her during his talk in Iowa. The last time I checked she doesn't need us behind her at the moment, she's lining up Rupert Murdoch to cover her back and fund her ambition. Meanwhile Wes Clark continues to slowly put the pieces together for his next National campaign for President, AFTER he helps Democrats retake Congress in 2006. You may think you have a good handle on the 2008 Democratic race, but you ain't seen nothing yet. Speaking opinions again of course, General Clark is the one Democrat who most Americans will trust handing over the security of our nation to, at a time when I predict people will be feeling damn insecure about that security. Clark's efforts now may not obviously be self promoting, and the reason for that is because they aren't. But Democrats around the country, not just inside the beltway and in NYC, are stirring, and they are increasingly becoming aware of and grateful for the efforts General Clark is making for them now in the trenches.

[Totally Committed]

37. You WILL drink the Kool-Aid...

You WILL obey.

Your candidate has no chance of winning.

Get behind Hillary now.

Resistance is futile.

You WILL obey.

Bite me.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

38. heh heh ...

perfect!

[Totally Committed]

39. Thanks!

Can you believe that sh*t?

TC

[BigYawn]

41. You are sooooo funny..

I have the biggest smile on my face after
reading your post!! I thank you for that.

[karynnj]

47. Can we please decide that in the primaries?

This far out in 2002, Lieeberman was as far ahead as Hillary is now. Even in December 2003, there was a poll that had Kerry behind Sharpton. I'm not for Clark - but he is polling at least that high now.

It's a democracy - he's an American citizen, not a felon and over 35 years old - if he wants to run in the primaries he can.

[BigYawn]

54. Yes ofcourse the primaries should decide....and once again,

good or bad, Clark will finish far behind Hillary.
I know you don't want to hear that, but that is my
prediction, and only time will tell who is right.

[joe_shmoe]

40. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn/

[Auntie Bush]

44. Bravo Tom! Every time I hear someone on TV say that the Dems

have no plans...I want to jump up and down and smack them side the head and ask them why don't they listen to Clark...HE HAS A PLAN! But NO, they put him on ignore and pretend he doesn't exist. Well, they better be prepared because Wes is going to bowl them over.

[Clarkie1]

45. It shows that Clark has an open mind unhampered by political ideology

which openly considers the ramifications of all possibilities, the options, and the costs. Most politicians are afraid to do this for fear of alienating their base. Clark looks for the best solutions regardless, and suggests considering how to live with an Iran that has nuclear weapons at the same time he considers the full range of military options and calls for dialogue. That kind of thinking would serve America well in the White House.

[One Honest Guy]

57. They should parachute that loser over Tehran, ASAP.

Here is several photos of Clark with a well known Serbian War Criminal, Ratko Mladic, who is at large and is currently wanted by every law enforcement agency on the planet. Look here, they traded their military hats! What fun!





Here's some info on Ratko from Interpol's site.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/1995/54/1995_47754.asp

Categories of Offences: ASSAULT , CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY , CRIMES AGAINST LIFE AND HEALTH , GRAVE BREACHES OF THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS , MURDER , PLUNDER , VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR

Nice friends you got there, Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Funny, those are the same charges against Milosevic

That being the Slobodan Milosevic who Clark defeated in a war to stop those exact same crimes, and who Clark testified against personally at a War Crimes trial at the Hague. OK, so you got to post your Photo Op hit job against Clark onto a serious thread which, if you would care to actually read it, is a discussion about how the United States should now handle relations with Iran. If you want to discuss Iran here, I'll do that with you.

If you want to open up a brand new topic attacking Clark for his conduct during the war in Bosnia, start your own thread, and I will join you there for that "discussion", but if you do, don't forget to mention Clark's role in the Dayton Peace Accords, OK?

This thread is focused on Iran. If you don't like Clark, take him out of it, but how do you think American politicians should be leading on this question, and who do you think has it right?

[One Honest Guy]

59. "Clark testified"?? Wasn't it behind closed doors?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/world/main590400.shtml

That right there says a lot. Article cites "security reasons". Oh, I bet. Notice in the article above, how French demanded closed door sessions as well, for their officers who were testifying. Probably has to do with the fact that it was these same French officers who aided Serbs in Balkans by giving them classified NATO information, and helping them during the Kosovo campaign.

BBC News | EUROPE | French major jailed as Serb spy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1706341.stm

>Edited for grammar.<

[Totally Committed]

60. Actually, Wes wanted the hearings open...

it was during the primaries, and he felt it would best serve the American people if the sessions were open. The Bushies did not want them open to the public, however, I feel because they didn't want a Democratic candidate coming out looking like a hero so close to our Party choosing a candidate.

Just my feelings on the subject. Tom is far better than I am at rebuttal, but I wanted to put my 2-cents in.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. The Bush administration has demanded time to listen to Clark's testimony"

From your link: "The Bush administration has demanded time to listen to Clark's testimony and potentially edit out any perceived threats to its national security, reports CBS News' Lauren Comiteau, and the tribunal has granted the request."

You really are heavy handed. OK let's let readers decide between two implied theories about Clark's closed door testimony.

Theory Number One: Clark had something to hide, just like a French military jailed Serb spy.

Theory Number Two: The Bush Administration wanted to make sure that Clark got as little press coverage as possible, regarding his role as the Supreme Allied Commander of N.A.T.O. who led a REAL coalition of the willing in a victorious war that brought an accused international war criminal to trial under international law. Keep in mind that Clark's Hague testimony came during the middle of his 2004 Presidential Primary race to run for President AGAINST GEORGE BUSH.

With that I am through with you. I offered to join you on a new thread about Clark that you can start. I asked you to join us in discussing Iran on this thread. Instead you came back with a slimy guilt by association insinuation that Clark could be a Serbian spy. I consider your motives now to be fully exposed.

[One Honest Guy]

62. I never said

that he was a "Serbian spy" as you put it. But it is quite apparent that the man has certain tendencies. Not only did Clark have something to hide, all of them did. Its not like Clark was the only person involved in Balkan wars and affairs. We are talking about hundreds, thousands even, of civilian and military personnel, regardless of political or ideological orientation, whose careers and personal integrity depended on Hague testimonies (all of em, not just Clark's testimony). Not to mention possible indictments by the Hague tribunal, as well a catastrophic scandal it would have created. Just imagine, "U.S. officials aided Serbs while ethnic cleansing operations were taking place". Ethnic cleansing operations against Bosnian and Kosovar muslims. That would be a PR disaster in the ongoing "War on Terror". This is not about Democrat or Republican, this is about right and wrong.

What motives? These?





This is akin to Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and you know it.

[Texas_Kat]

63. Actually no.... Clark has always advocated talking

to an opponent. Mdlac wound up with a hat, from the meeting with Rumsfeld, Saddaam wound up with weapons systems. Certainly not an equivalency.

Clark is advocating talking to Iran as oppposed to bombing them. Clark has always studied an opponent in depth. You can read about 'the opposition' all day, but there's no better way to learn firsthand what you may be facing than a personal meeting. I assure you he didn't get 'cooties' from that meeting.

In military parlance, it's called recon. Sun-Tzu's advice was always to "know your enemy". Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

On second thought, maybe you are of the opinion that we should just bomb the hell out of an opponent?

On edit: clear up typos

[Totally Committed]

65. Personally, I wish there were a lot more "talking"

these days, and less fighting. Clarkk has always been for talking/diplomacy first until all avenues are exhausted, rather than immediate engagement. I agree with him. Anthing else makes aus as stupid and blood-thirsty as the Republicans.

TC

[NCarolinawoman]

67. With that logic you can say that FDR was Stalin's good buddy.

There is a picture of FDR taken at Yalta sitting side by side with Stalin and they are both smiling. Churchhill looks like he is having a great time as well. By the way, FDR referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

Then there is the picture of Tricky Dick Nixon breaking up in laughter with Chou En-Lai, and toasting Mao.

I guess there are more examples of this kind of thing; wish I was able to post these photos for I have certainly seen them.

Perhaps we can find one of Ambassador Joe Wilson smiling with Sadam when he was stationed over in Iraq???!!

Bottom line is that you can not take these things at face value, particularly by looking at photos.

[FrenchieCat]

68. What do the French have to do with Clark's testimony?

Yeah Clark testified behind closed doors. Too bad you haven't bothered to look into why that was.

This means everything that you say from this point out is to be taken with a grain of Clark bashing Salt! Duh! :eyes:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=907
Wesley Clark to testify at The Hague — behind Bush-imposed secrecy

Wesley Clark will be testifying at a war crimes trial against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in two weeks, but thanks to the Bush administration, he'll be doing so under heavy secrecy.
snip
But, as several Carpetbagger sources have mentioned to me this morning (thanks to all), Clark will be testifying under very unusual conditions, thanks to a White House that is obviouslty afraid of Clark's political prospects.

As the Chicago Tribune reported today, "The Bush administration has imposed heavy secrecy and censorship measures on the testimony of retired Gen. Wesley Clark…when he takes the stand later this month at the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic."

"At the insistence of State Department's legal office, the courtroom's public gallery will be cleared when Clark is called to testify Dec. 15-16 in The Hague," the Tribune explained. "Cameras that normally broadcast the proceedings on closed-circuit television and the Internet will be blacked out."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001806160_clark03.html
Clark testimony to be censored in Milosevic trial

By Tom Hundley; The Associated Press
Chicago Tribune

LONDON — The Bush administration has imposed heavy secrecy and censorship measures on the testimony of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, when he takes the stand this month at the war-crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The administration's action will blunt the drama of what many expected to be a crucial moment in Milosevic's lengthy trial and perhaps one of the defining moments in the presidential campaign of Clark, who defeated the Yugoslav leader in the Kosovo campaign.

[IA_Seth]

64. Friends?

I had the opportunity to meet and visit with Clark last Saturday here in Iowa, and one of the things he said over and over again (in reference to Iran, but anytime) is that he doesn't agree with bombing someone before you speak to them. He believes that all diplomatic options should be used before any military action is underway.

What you have there is a clear picture of those words in action. Would you have prefered we attacked without trying to work through diplomatic channels first?

[Totally Committed]

66. Thank you!

That bears out everything I just posted as well.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

69. Those photos prove that Clark will use diplomacy before bombing

anyone! That's what should happen.....

Plus, that picture was taken BEFORE Mladlic was "wanted" for the crimes. Count the stars on Wes' shoulders. I count three. This pic was taken in 1994, if I recall. Mladlic was charged as a war criminal in 1996 for the crimes he committed in 1995.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9607/11/bosnia.hague/index.html

"The Dayton Peace Accord in which Wes Clark was a intrical negotiator was signed in 1995."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement
---------------

It appears that some well-intentioned folks have blundered in the matter of Wesley Clark's photo-op with accused war criminal Ratco Mladic. To boil this down considerably, there are two issues. One is the propriety of meeting and fooling around with Mladic in 1994. On this count, as far as I am concerned, there is no meaningful case against Clark. A legitimate part of his job would be sizing up an adversary.
http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00001460.html
-----------------

On August 27, 1994, Clark, then director of strategy, plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Banja Luka, Bosnia, and met with Ratko Mladic.

In a bit of bonhomie, Clark exchanged hats with Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb commander who was later indicted for some of the worst atrocities of the war. (Mladic is still at large.) But the hat exchange, Clark's associates say,only shows the general's determination to succeed as a diplomat.
Newsweek/ April 5, 1999

[IA_Seth]

70. My point exactly!

It's funny that a picture that prooves Clark is a man of words is the "proof" that haters try to bring around to prove he is a war criminal.

Absurd!

[FrenchieCat]

71. More than absurd! That's what I would call a "hit" against

diplomacy and the diplomats!

The poster with the pics appears to have questionnable motives, considering that the "hat exchange" hit was initially put out against Wes by none other than Corporate tool/Bush Apologists, Robert Novak and and the biased GOP press called World Daily Net! Of course, both had motives back in September of 2003, in smearing Gen. Clark. Early smears were certainly done in order to keep Wes Clark from getting even close the Presidency. In fact, I venture to say; Wes Clark was smeared by the GOP during the Democratic primaries much more than any other candidate. Maybe it was the nightmare that a Wes Clark nominee would have presented to the likes of George Bush in 2004.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/09/22/168223.html

The beauty of it all, is even after all of the smears, Wes Clark is still widely respected and commands attention wherever he goes....and is still credited for negotiating a peace treaty and planning, leading and winning a war without any U.S. soldier Casualties (and the civilian casualty was also to be considered relatively low for any war to date) just six short years ago......which means he's done something on the issues of War and Peace that not many can claim who are still alive.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Wow, talking to an enemy before we bomb them

What a concept!

And exactly what he's proposing we do with Iran.

'Course, in between those photos and the actual war, we negotiated a peace treaty (and Clark handled the military side of it). It was only after Milosevic broke the treaty that the Serbs were bombed.

But the point is, we tried to talk first. Then-Lieutenant General Clark was given the job. Now the rightwingers use it against him. Cuz, you know, you're not supposed to talk to enemies. Might look weak and "un-resolute." Wouldn't want to be misunderestimated.

[Bucky]

72. Jeezus. That's how he speaks off the cuff. Off the friggin cuff.

There is no compare and contrast essay worthy of the contrast between what we got and what we could have

[Donna Zen]

74. What about "full employment"?

All of those people currently scrubbing the resident's text at whitehouse.gov would lose their jobs. :rofl:


Yes, his answers are always concise, and the product of an excellent teacher. Oh...and they're filled with the truth.