You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Wes Clark is right about Iran [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 10:09 PM
Original message
Wes Clark is right about Iran
Advertisements [?]
Remember this man?

Hes the one from the IAEA that let us know in 2003 that Iraq had no WMD.

So I was concerned when I read this article which seems to infer that Dr. ElBaradei, whom I trust, is worried about Iran. Could General Clark be wrong in Iran? Should we bomb first and switch justifications later?

"ElBaradei is saying that Iran will have 8,000 centrifuges running if the current pace (of installation) continues" at its enrichment plant in Natanz, the diplomat said, adding that, from a proliferation point of view, ElBaradei was becoming "increasingly concerned."

(Aside: please note this line in the article: Iran could reach its goal of industrial scale production with 3,000 centrifuges running by the end of June, a senior official close to the IAEA said. That number could make enough enriched uranium for a bomb in less than a year, experts say. That sounds familiar Who could the mystery experts be? Not the U.S. Ambassador surely? I mean, really. Can someone please teach Michael Adler about the Google?!)

So should we be scared?

I dont think so. After reading several versions of that article, I came to the conclusion that he is using his influence, knowledge and foresight to push an agenda of Diplomacy onto unwilling parties. Because, just maybe, he feels really crappy that he didnt shout loud enough last time people started their sabre-rattling and fact-fudging. I like it - and not just because it pisses Condi off. Whether or not its his job, as many voices as can be raised to shout diplomacy the better. After all, its his world too.

In May of this year, El Baradei sat down with the BBC and gave a very important interview on Iran and their nuclear ambitions:

Definitely whether they have the intention or they do not have the intention, one thing is clear, they are not today a clear and present danger and that is not only my view, that is the view of the MI6, that is the view of the CIA. That even if they have the intention to develop nuclear weapons, they are still 5 to 10 years away from such undertaking and that to me means that we need to invest our time in developing a comprehensive, peaceful resolution of the issue, that understands, puts the nuclear issue in a proper context that is part and parcel of the global or regional insecurity in the Middle East.

Mohamed ElBaradei: Yes, but that would also require that they walk all the way out of the NPT, because as long as they are under IAEA verification they will not be able to go from the 5 percent enrichment to the 90 percent enrichment. So you have to assume...that is what I have been saying for a while, when you talk about Iran today, you are talking about a future risk assessment. That the scenario is Iran will have 3,000, Iran will walk out of the NPT, and then they will develop nuclear weapons, and then they will pursue an aggressive policy in the Middle East...

So, as long as they are under IAEA verification, they cant get to the 90% enrichment. Following me? Sound familiar?

(initiate dream sequence, harkening back to the 2004 Presidential debate) Senator Kerry, please remember, reminded us how another nation had a keen interest in developing nuclear power, and the world was concerned about them building weapons. A solution was to use diplomacy to keep an eye on North Koreas nuclear program.

Senator Kerry: With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.

Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.

That happened on this president's watch.

Well, people, we are still on that Presidents watch. Fortunately, this time we have people like ElBaradei and General Clark working hard to throw up roadblocks to the rhetoric. This time we have the tincture of hindsight on Iraq (and who had the correct facts, in the end).

So Senator Lieberman, I do consider you one of the new crazies, and really wish you would step aside and let true leaders take care of the business of tireless campaigning to keep the world safe.

Wes Clark is right about Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC