on Clark's position in reference to Iran. Clark was the first one to insist that we should "talk" to Iran, not bomb them.
If you're looking for those Democratic candidates that are not taking the military option off the table, and are also not advocating that we "talk" to Iran, you will need to look at other potential candidates.
"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.htmlWesley Clark on Iran: "We Need to Talk"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857"I'd, I'd send a high level emissary to talk to the Iranian leadership and have direct dialog with Iran. "
http://securingamerica.com/node/1243"We must talk to Iran. We must talk to Syria…and Kuwait and Jordan. But it's Iran and Syria that we've resisted talking to. They're part of the equation whether we like it or not and we need to be talking to them."
http://securingamerica.com/node/1766On Fox News no less, an exchange with Wes Clark.....
Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"
"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 millon men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."
Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."
"If you agree with people, the dipolomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."
After he finished, a woman said, "I disagree with the general, and I agree with Juliet. We’re dealing with people that want to kill us. It's like if somebody's holding a gun to you how can you just talk to them?"
Clark again was ready with a response. "They’re not holding a gun to our heads," he said. "We are there. It’s our military that’s in Iraq. It’s the Israelis that are there with the most powerful vorce in the region. Iran has no way of reaching us except through Hezbollah terrorists. We’re tracking those people in the United States. I’m not saying there’s no threat, but I’m saying don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a head-on conflict like Germany and the United States in World War II. It’s not there."
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php 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 doubletalk, 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 cannot 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:
http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/05/realitybased_clark_speaks_abou.htmGENERAL 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.
snip
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? -more
This ClarkCast, "Common Voices: Iowa" in audio, video and transcript here.
http://securingamerica.com/clarkcastshttp://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/05/realitybased_clark_speaks_abou.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
