Did anyone see Wes. Clark on This week.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

I searched and didn't see anything about this. He said something that concerned me, it was to the effect that we should start trading with Iran. It was like the argument that trade prevents war, Friedman (which, there is some merit, but I do not buy that if we become trading partners they will lose all initiative to destroy us).

Did anyone else see this, am I correct?

[Texifornia]

1. Talking to Iran

I didn't hear anything about trade.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

2. I'm not gonna pay $19.95 for the transscripts, but I think I still have

the tape! I will post either way.

[IsItJustMe]

3. I wouldn't make the assumption that Iran was trying to destroy us to begin

with.

We have just invaded two countries that just happen to be right next to them. They just might be a little worried about that.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

4. Ok. I listened to the tape several times and here is the portion

I was speaking of:

George Steph. "Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month , uh, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly before and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach then other democrats like Sen. Evan Bayh or Sen. Clinton are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that we need...(it was very muffled by Geo. and over-talked by Clark)...."

Wes. Clark, "Maybe we need tough sanctions later on, but before any of that happens, years ago, we should have talk to Iran etc......"

Edit: There is a trade agenda, I know others here will be able to explain further. It was the point that trade, would solve the problem. ( I am not neo-con, paleo-con. etc literate, but this is an agenda that many here will connect).

[Bucky]

7. Yeh, but both of those neighbors were their enemies.

There's a good case to be made that Chalabi was an Iranian agent of influence and manipulated Perl, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, into thinking there were WMDs and waiting cheers to compel a US invasion. In one fell swoop, Iran took out Saddam and discredited the US. This is following the backstab the Bushies did to them, first by accepting Iranian help in tracking down the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then adding them to the Axis of Evil list (while leaving Libya and Syria off).

The entire Bush agenda has been to provoke a showdown with Iran, in the hopes of validating their cold war mentality against Iran. Clark is in the smart camp that says doing business builds opportunities and creates interest groups in other countries who will stand against future conflicts. His point that the Bushes are throwing away all their options except for the military is right on the money. Bush unilateralism is a recipe for either war or discrediting the US in the region.

[boston bean]

5. I did, and he did not impress me. nt

[Clark2008]

10. Why?

Because he expounds a reasonable argument as to WHY we can't just pull troops out on a whim?

We can't, you know, for their safety and the safety of the Iraqi civilians. He (and I) were against this war from the off-set, but you can't just pull out the military until you set the political motions off, which BushCo. has no intentions of doing (until we need to go bomb Iran, that is). Even Jack Murtha agrees with this - it's time to work on a political solution so we can get our troops home.

Or was it because he actually thinks diplomacy has a shot in Iran?

Or was it because he believes we need to look over every trade agreement we have with foreign countries?

I really don't know why he didn't impress you, because he sure as hell always impresses me - and he impressed my former spy husband (who worked as an Army liason with the NSA).

[Bucky]

6. His main point was to ensure that Iraq's Sunnis have buy-in to the gov't

That's about as close as possible to an effective solution to the Iraq mess. He's also, I think, right that trade with Iran is a good thing. That's what ended the cold war with dancing instead of explosions. Creeping materialism in Eastern Europe made the inefficiencies of a command economy intolerable to the people there. The theory is that with the sophisticated, well educated electorate in Iran, the same formula can work. I think that makes a LOT more sense than just staring them down and not having a long term solution to the tensions--which is the current Bush policy.

[TacticalPeek]

8. Here's the clip.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=235&topic_id=8054&mesg_id=8068


And here's my favorite Clark quote"

October 3, 2003

Going further than his nine rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, most of whom have called for a special counsel to probe the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name, Clark also demanded an independent commission investigate the "possible manipulation" of intelligence leading to the war in Iraq.

"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a war based on false claims," he told a conference of military reporters and editors. "Its handling of intelligence and its retaliation against its critics may have been criminal."

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_10_04_weblog_archive.php

:patriot:

[Armstead]

9. I thought he made a lot of sense on Iran

He basically made the point that we should engage in actual discussion and interaction with Iran, rather than trying to box them into a corner. He noted that there are many different factions in their givernment and society, and they aren't one monolithic US-hating entity.

Trade is not bad on its own terms, by the way. It's a good thing. The current problem is the phony con job that is the "free trade" movement.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

11. You are probably correct. This trade stuff has really made me

suspicious. It's like you said, this "free trade", otherwise known as repayment for services rendered that got my back up. God, with this admin., I don't know what the meaning of anything is anymore.