Hillary Clinton and some other Dems are sending the wrong signal on Iran.

[Clarkie1]

She and some other Democrats seem to feel a need to "look tough" as opposed to advocating the best approach to deal with the current situation. This concerns me. It also occurs to me that, as potential nominees for Commander in Chief, we should seriously consider their judgment on this matter, as it may reflect on their judgment in future matters. I don't want a President who feels any need to demonstrate their "toughness" in international affairs. We will need a President with experience in complex matters of international relations. This is not an attack on other Democrats, it's more important than that. We need to focus on 06' now, but I also want people to really, really think about the situation the world is in today. It is far, far more complex than during the cold war. I am very, very concerned that there seems to be no coherent message coming from the Democratic Party on Iran except that we are afraid to "look weak." That plays right in the neo-cons hands.

This Week with George Stephanopoulos
3/5/06

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

George Stephanopoulos: Let's talk about some politics. It seems to me you're scratching the presidential edge just a little bit again, heading up to New Hampshire later this month. What lessons did you learn from your campaign in 2004 and how will you decide whether to run in 2008?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, what I'm trying to do is help the right Democrats get elected in 2006. That's the most important thing. And, I'm very proud, we've got something like 55 US military veterans running for Congress as Democrats. I want to help each and every one of them. I think they can make a huge difference in the future of this country. I think having one-party domination of government is very dangerous for democracy and frankly that's where all my energies and activities are focused.

George Stephanopoulos: Well, you've completely ignored my question. Let me re-ask one of them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I just want to make it clear, George, I know there's a lot of speculation on 2008 and there's a lot of great people out there who are lining up and testing the waters and setting up exploratory committees. I'm very proud to have had the opportunity to run in 2004; I did learn a lot. And if you look at what qualities are required in a president today, this is a time where Americans are engaged and responding to foreign affairs like never before. The war on terror, the war in Iraq, the port issue, global trade, um, the avian flu…I mean, it's just…we cannot wall off the outside world so I think it's very important that Americans look to people who've got some experience. Having said that, my focus is on 2006 and helping the right Democrats get into office because I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works, we need Congress to do its job, we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch, we need <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: Like what?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.

George Stephanopoulos: And we'll have you back after the midterms. General Clark, thanks very much.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thanks very much, George.

http://securingamerica.com/node/692

[Vexatious Ape]

1. Right on

LBJ wanted to look tough against the Commies and ...I guess I don't have to go on about that do I?

[Clarkie1]

2. It's a "only Nixon could go to China" kind of thing. n/t

[Erika]

3. Hillary has a sense of motherly love and motherly protection

that will do this country well. She doesn't have a facade of Texas cowboyism or big oil interests at heart.

For those who doubt the female strength, try to harm the young in a mother's presence. It's ten times the ferocity of a male.

[Clarkie1]

4. Erika...I'm pointing out specific matter of policy here.

And the need some Democrats may feel to "look tough" (in this case, by advocating "tough" sanctions now) to the detriment of the wisest course of action (open up direct channels of communication now). I am not doubting Hillary's toughness or "ferocity" as you put it, nor her motherly love. That is not the issue. We should be playing our cards slowly and deliberately with Iran, not unnecessarily uping the ante in a knee-jerk fashion every time we here a bit of inflammatory rhetoric. With Iran, time is on our side.

You do seem to have a prejudice against males and fatherly love...but I don't want to go there as the issue is matters of policy, not fatherly or motherly love. I understand how mother bears protect their cubs.

[Erika]

5. Why did you bring up such an issue?

Please post anything that supports any prejudice on my part against males.

I do know that women are able to transfer their protectionism in the event of war. Many women have given their lives in Iraq. I am very proud of the women.

[Clarkie1]

6. I don't know why you brought up the gender issue.

It's not a matter of women being patriotic, brave, or protective. That is completely off-topic.

It's not just Hillary that is advocating the wrong appraoch at this time, so are others such as Evan Bayh who might feel a need to demonstate or affirm their toughness in international affairs.

[Erika]

7. Please show me the posts

where you say I am biased against males. Second request.

[Clarkie1]

8. O.K. Erika, I apologize. You are not prejudiced. It was post #3.

"For those who doubt the female strength, try to harm the young in a mother's presence. It's ten times the ferocity of a male."

I understand of course that in the natural world this is often the case. In the context I felt you were implying a female president, simply by virtue of being female, would have ten times the strength of a male president.

My mistake. I'm really not interested in your prejudices or lack thereof. Let's move on.

[Erika]

9. Did post #3 indicate male bias?

Or did it indicate a woman very much is capable of defending her own?

[Clarkie1]

10. I don't care. n/t

[still_one]

13. and those lives were wasted, because the war did NOTHING

to fight terrorism or fight a real threat

[still_one]

12. you think so, she thinks we should stay the course in Iraq

in fact her position isn't very much different from mccains

let me remind you WE INVADED IRAQ BASED ON A LIE, and a hell of a lot of people have been killed in our name. I think we have done enough, it is time to get out of Iraq

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

15. What in the big blue sky does this have to do with it?

We're talking about the indefensible stands by Hillary and many other prominent Dems that may very well push the US into a major and horrifically bloody war against Iran that would make even the Iraq quagmire look like a minor inconvenience in comparison. Are you trying to imply that Iran is somehow "harming our young" or somesuch here? Or is this just a total nonsequitur?

While most mothers (and fathers, for that matter) will fight with incredible ferocity to protect their young, for the most part they tend to avoid (for moral reasons or otherwise) attacking the young of others. HRC's failure to ask the tough questions and confront Bush on Iraq in 2002 has contributed greatly to our many war crimes in that country, which you can be sure have killed thousands of babies in Iraq and created tremendous, ferocious resentments among the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts and cousins in that country who are seeking revenge against the US for taking everything away from them. We are the aggressors attacking the innocent young of another country here, not the Iraqis and not the Iranians either.

[Clarkie1]

11. Diane Feinstein has an excellent OP-ED piece on Iran.

With an emphasis on more diplomacy (unlike Hillary's approach, and more in line with Clark's).

There is a thread on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x942397

[ShortnFiery]

17. Both Feinstein and Clinton have to shed their THREATS & war-packs ...

Did they not notice that this Iranian figurehead is just taunting them. He doesn't have near the military strength as Chimpy when it comes to making the COMMAND calls.

I'm sick of warmongering Democrats too. How about we leave the Middle East the F**k alone? Let other neighbors, you know ACTUAL NEIGHBORS (European Union) *lead* the way.

Why do we always have to play *bully boy*?!?

When Democrats chime along with this EMPTY bravado, it makes me twice as sick.

[Clarkie1]

19. Did you read Feinstein's OP-Ed in it's entirety?

She is advocating a very different approach then Clinton or Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Yes, we can support Israel and the EU but we should NOT be in the lead n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

14. I find Hillary to be a maddening candidate-- her own worst enemy

I was starting to warm back up to Hillary after years of alienation, but then she once again tries to pull this "look and talk tough" act on Iran, with real consequences potentially including the start of a very nasty WWIII. It makes it extremely difficult to support her, and if she can't even get her own base enthusiastic, she's toast for 2008 (maybe even for 2006). Is she making a conscious effort to lose here?

[Bucky]

16. Agreed, but she is SO not "toast for 2006" & frankly her '08 prospects are

... pretty darn good. I'm not happy about it and I don't think it'll sell in the end. But with all the free hyping she's getting from the right wing media, she's gonna raise a LOT of money and pull a lot of default support before the campaigns begin in earnest.

[ShortnFiery]

18. She'll keep her Senate Seat ... anything else is, IMO, conjecture n/t

[mtnsnake]

20. You seemed to have highlighted Hillary, when other high profile Democrats

have been just as hawkish or even more hawkish than she has in regards to taking care of business with Iran (and North Korea).

How many times...before, during, and after the 2004 elections...did we hear more than one high-profile Democrat blasting Bush for going after Iraq when he should've been going after Iran and North Korea instead?

Well now that the asshole in the WH has seemed to taken them up on their challenges, this shit is going to come back to kick them all in the ass.

Just the same, I'm voting for your thread because it shows we have at least one candidate in General Clark who's got more than just a little bit of decency and brains in his head. At least Clark wants to talk and try diplomacy, as opposed to going in cold turkey with sanctions, or worse yet with bombs like Bush would love to do.

This is why Clark was/is the one who I wish was our president. IMO, no one even comes close as far as the rest of the candidates....even Hillary who I stick up for so often.

[saltpoint]

22. I wouldn't mind if 60 Minutes or another popular program like that

would interview Dennis Kucinich for an hour.

I think he could bring some new insights into a lot of living rooms.

Especially on Dubya's bloodmongering war plans for Iran.