"This administration is going to take us to war with Iran..." Wes Clark

[Tom Rinaldo]

Here is the full context to that quote, part of Clark's 9/30/06 speech to the Warren Co, Iowa Democratic Dinner:

"There's about 50,000 people out there aligned with Osama bin Laden. Not one government supports Osama bin Laden. It's NOT World War III. Unless we make it that way. Unless we make it that way.

And that's my greatest concern. If we don't get our Democrats in office, around America and in the Congress in Washington, this administration is going to take us to war with Iran, and try to start a war with a billion people. People of the Islamic faith. There's no reason to do it. In my view. There's a solution to the problem we face."


Clark is deadly serious about the threat to America posed by an unchecked Bush Administration, which is the real reason why he is campaigning for Democrats every day now, day and night, in every corner of our nation. That's what hangs in the balance.

Clark went on to add:

"I say, let's talk with people we don't agree with. We should right now, be talking with the government of Iran, the government of Syria, and I'm talking about face-to-face talks at senior levels of government. Not outsourcing it.

I'd like to tell you this administration was too cowardly to talk with people it doesn't agree with. But of course, that's not true. It's not cowardice. What they still harbor is the intent to attack the governments of Syria and Iran and therefore they block any diplomatic dialog. And the consequence has been that they dump the problem of Iraq on our good men and women in uniform and they force them to try to treat it as a military problem when it is not applicable.

A military solution will not work in Iraq. You've got to have a diplomatic solution, a political solution, and you've got to use your military as leverage.

You can't win it by killing people in Iraq. It's not that kind of a struggle."


Wes Clark always has inside sources. When he says that the Bush Administration is blocking diplomatic dialog with Syria and Iran because their intent is to attack Syria and Iran, Clark has damn good reasons for saying that. Earlier in that same speech Clark had this to say:

"We are at war. We've got 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. We've got another 30,000 in Kuwait backing them up. We've got 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are stretched flat out.

This talk about "maybe we could put a few more troops over there". It's academic, ladies and gentlemen.

The volunteer army is working as hard as it can work. The families are being stretched and squeezed, and separated and punished about as much as they can be punished. And frankly, if Congress gave us enough money to raise another 100,000 troops, which is what we need, we couldn't get 'em.

We're a country at war. Now I know the President hasn't asked us to sacrifice, in fact, he asked us to go shopping. He cut taxes for wealthy people and he's worried about the price of gasoline because that seems to be the most important thing on his mind to correlate to reelection. But I want to tell you this country is at the precipice of a national security disaster.

Just a disaster."


General Clark clearly is worried, and I have to say that worries me. Underneath all the slime and Republican hypocrisy unearthed through the Foley scandal, actions that will determine the life and death of millions of people are still being plotted in Washington DC, they are still moving forward:

"It's NOT World War III. Unless we make it that way. Unless we make it that way."

People, it doesn't get more serious than this. To the extent that any of us have any leverage we can play that can make any difference between possible War and Peace for a generation or more; we have that leverage now, in the final run up to the mid term elections. The Bush Administration must suffer a stinging defeat in November. They must soundly be repudiated by the American people. Democrats in Congress must be given the power to supeana, we must peel back the web of lies in the full glare of public scrutiny. Clark sums it all up here:

"This is more important than healthcare, education, a minimum wage or energy independence. We've got to get these people out before they take American over the precipice."

The full transcript and video of Clark's speech can be found here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1602

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That's scary. Clark has always been prescient about this stuff,

and if he says they're planning to attack Iran, they probably are. And just the other day Gary Hart, who is also very knowledgeable, said much the same thing, here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060923/cm_huffpost/030086

:scared:

[EVDebs]

2. My neocon *-loving friend says "war is good for the economy"

I kid you not, he said this with a straight face. Un-Be-Friggin' Leavable.

[indepat]

13. Tens of millions of Amerikans still march to the drummer's every beat

like mindless soulless lemming.

[bobbieinok]

19. before Iraq war my students said other profs (govt, history, etc)

were telling their students that wars ALWAYS help the economy.??????!!!!!!!!

[EVDebs]

20. Read Kevin Phillip's Wealth and Democracy

and you find that in the end wars of empire result in the overextension of the empire and eventual demise of said empire: Spain, Netherlands, Britain, and now US. All short term thinking; all avoiding the harsh reality that someone has to pay for those wars and when a tiny wealthy group at the top creates such an incomes disparity, as those other former-empires did also, you end up with the kind of fiasco we have here today.

"You can have great wealth or a democracy, but you cannot have both"-- Louis Brandeis

[fuzzyball]

44. Not true after WW II....America came out of depression mainly due to

that war. Enormous jobs were created to build tanks, planes,
artillery and ammunition to fight the war. However a lot of
belt tightening took place on social spending.
Post WW II became a period of prosperity.

However the Viet-Nam war did not produce the same result,
since spending was done for guns AND butter.

I am afraid Bush admin is following the Viet-Nam model in the
current Iraq war with spending for guns AND butter. That will
soon bankrupt the country.

[jwirr]

42. That was the general consensus after WWII. Pugs back then

said that it wasn't FDR's social agenda that ended the depression but the war. Now as I look back I wonder if that was not just pug propaganda against FDR? And are these wars the reason we have a national debt another issue that pugs blame on social programs?

[EVDebs]

58. In 1937 FDR shortcircuited a rebound by trying too soon to balance budget

sending the economy back downhill. Look, we all know that the Bonus March of 1932, and subsequent 'American Tienanmen Square' attack on those marchers, got FDR elected in the first place.

Read about Bush family background in the attempted coup attempt on FDR back then via USMC Gen Smedley D. Butler in Jules Archer's book The Plot To Seize The White House.

http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm

The video of the story is available at
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13844.htm (under a slightly different name)

[Toots]

52. That is one more Republican LIE based on how FDR brought America's

economy back from the Republican's pillage which created the great depression. They credit the war for the boom after when it was in fact how FDR used goivernment to get America working. The GI bill and Social Security are just two great reasons America prospered after world war two and it all came after the war and not from it. Not to even mention Labor Laws.....Another huge Republican Lie is "Government is the problem and not the solution" Republican government definitly is the problem and not the solution since they haven't a clue how to run a government, but Government is what maintains a civil society. Government is not Bad...

[Donna Zen]

3. Sitting here fuming

I just watched Charlie Rose's interview with Halperin and Harris talking about their new book. Their only interest in this war only related to how various politicians will play it. Good God! Is that what we have become? General Clark is right: get these bastards out of office. All I could think when listening to the beltway crowd was how little they care about our country.

Wes Clark is trying to turn this around, and yes, the Democrats can help us. People like Massa, Sestak, Webb and Walz are not going to put up with this crap.

[cornermouse]

11. I heard that too.

I wasn't happy with Halperin or the other jerk either although I do think their point about the paralysis the democratic party has displayed since Bush and Rove showed up may have had some validity.

[karynnj]

14. Except they are part of the problem themselves

In the excerpt of their book, they are lavish with their praise for Matt Drudge, who they label this generation's Walter Conkrite. There may be some similarity in that he has a huge audience. The difference is that Cronkite had developed a relationship with the American people as a person they could trust to tell the truth.

In detailing why Drudge is great, he used a story that I never heard. In 2002, a RNC consultant learned that Kerry had his hair cut by the exclusive hairdresser, who had cut the Clintons' hair. (Yes, the famous airport non-story). Drudge took this and FABRICATED a story, with fake quotes and details. Drudge quoted a nonexistant stylist saying that Kerry was very particular and his hair had to be colored and highlighted and layered in exactly the way he wanted and that he paid $150. (which even in NJ would cost more than that) He made extensive use of words like "vain". He then said the Kerry staff said Kerry simply got a $75 hair cut. This in fact was an early variant of the Cameron (Fox News) made up story.

It says more to me about Halperin and Harris that they praise this. Frankly, this is NOT what Cronkite or Murrow were about. The writing of that story actually is written as if the gist of that story were true, even while they are saying the story was made up! (They also state that the "truth" on Kerry's service is not either with Kerry or with the SBVT - which alone discredits them completely. Kerry's "story" happens to be identical to the offical record.)

Donna,
I would take their comments with all politicians will play this with a grain of salt, it is pretty clear from the short except given that they do not value truth, just spin. (I did not hear the comments).

Clark's comments are beyond scary - and he is not one to exaggerate.

[cornermouse]

15. I absolutely agree that they are part of the problem.

But there also appeared to be an element of paralysis whether they didn't really know what to do or whether they thought that the lies would just fade away because they wasn't true. By the way, don't you remember when they accused Clinton of too expensive haircuts and delaying traffic? Not a peep about where Bush gets his haircuts or with the increased security, even more get delayed for longer periods of time.

[karynnj]

21. I think that Kerry handled the story in a way that likely

would have worked as recently as 2000. Getting undesputable facts to the media was the way to stop smears through the entire time I watched the news (since about 1960). Kerry had all the official records and the vast majority of real eye witnesses behind him. Many of the SBVT had in fact praised Kerry either in fitness reports in the 60s, in earlier campaigns, and in the interviews done with Brinkley. More than 30 years after the fact they, in unison, changed their mind. The media though stopped every single question in the TANG case when documents that wern't authenticated, but which had content that was supported by many people were disputed. Kerry had the far far more solid case - the different treatment tells you this was intentional.

I did mention Bill's hair cut. The point was Kerry's should have been a non-story. He simplt got a haircut. He could afford the $75 and whatever tip he left.

[Donna Zen]

22. Thanks for the direct comment

Okay, here's the deal: Harris and Halperin are influential, and whatever their take is becomes the MSM's take. According to their bible: Yes Drudge is great, Rove is brilliant and great. And triangulation is great but maybe passe.

WTF ever happened to governing the country? Triangulated trade policies were horrible for the average American, and worse for people creating the shit we buy who lack labor laws. This war is a clift too high. Drudge is a freaking liar who needs all honest journalists to expose them, and rove in nothing less than an anti-American crook. What about the people dying in Iraq? Does their existance point to brilliance of bush, rove, and Hillary? The conversation was so depressing, and so revealing of the depth of our problem.

The night before on PBS, Franks and Ornstein (surprisingly) had a conversation that was a 180 of this. I agree with them. As long as Harris, Halperin, and their smarmy heros are running the country, I have little to hope for and much to fear.

[karynnj]

25. You're welcome - I agree 100% on everything you are saying

It is obvious that you are as sicken by these people who consider politics to be the end all and be all and policy as what you use to gain politically. I wish I would have seen The Franks/Ornstein conversation.

[Donna Zen]

30. Franks/Ornstein with Moyers

I'm sure that PBS will re-air the program. Being Moyers, we can count on his facts. But for me, the closing comments were not to be missed. I've also heard that the PBS website has the program available online.

Franks and Ornstein talked about the influence of money. Ornstein said that while it has been a long-term problem, he's never seen anything like it is today. Also, both men pointed fingers at both parties for being consumed by the bucks. They said that the republicans are clearly on the "take," and that the Democrats just don't understand why it is such a problem. Nobody is governing for the people, or by the people.

To be fair, we all know that there are Democrats who understand and would like to do something about the mess, but if we are to be honest, then we must admit that we shelter our own problems. Nevertheless, the hammer was falling on the republicans the hardest. Ornstein, a republican, was shocked by what Hastert considered ethics reform. He said in all of years in Washington, he'd never seen anything so blatantly dishonest.

Moyers knows how to ask questions, and these guys knew how to answer. No Spin.

[followthemoney]

4. If the Republicans lose will they leave office or even admit it?

What happens when the public faces of GE, Westinhouse, and Disney claim the Republicans won? Can the military remove them?

This didn't turn out so well the last three times.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. The news cycle conspired in our favor this time

Public perceptions are key. The Republicans are not framing the public debate the way they wanted to. Reality, and some welcome spine shown by some leading Democrats and, yes, Keith Oberman, has pulled the message rug out from under them. We have a real chance now, if all of us get out there and do the hard grunt work needed to get Democrats elected, to create a buzz, a sense of momentum that is personally experienced by typical day to day Americans talking in Supermarkets and at the Office. Voters need to be talking about how they themselves or people they know personally are abandoning the Republican Party to vote Democratic this November. That is what will make a Democratic victory real to America, and very difficult to steal out from under us. When the people themselves know that the mood of America has shifted strongly against the Republican War and Sleaze Party, then a media attempts to say otherwise rings very false. That's why we have to do the phone calls and door knocking and envelope stuffing and letters to the editors. Everyone and their uncle needs to know before Election Day that the Republicans are being repudiated by their own neighbors.

[cui bono]

8. The way they're all lying these days...

I can see the news reporting that they lost, everyone knowing that they lost, the Dems getting sworn in, and yet the Repubs and BushCo keep on saying they won and keep going on with business as usual. They do live in an alternate reality already flat out lying about things that are well known to the public.

[Gregorian]

6. What is dangerous is that the are not politicians. They are businessmen.

Clark is one hell of a great man. An honest one. When he mentions talking to people who we have problems with, I can only shake my head. Talk? These are not people who are in this for OUR good. Nor America's good. They are in it for the money.

And war IS good for the economy. But it's like heroin. It's great for a short period of time and then reality hits. Not to mention it's poisonous.

I still don't understand how anyone living in this country could be willing to drag it over a cliff. They live here too! Do they really think the rest of the world isn't ready to string them up on gallows?

I feel powerless. We've done everything in our powers to unravel their lies, and figure out what to do. And the books we've written. The protests we've had. The forums we've participated in. Where does this stop?!

Clark and Kerry and Kennedy and Conyers and the rest are great men. Pelosi, Boxer. They've all done so much.

Now it's time for something. It's time.

[Donna Zen]

33. Once upon a time...

we asked Wes if the republicans were aware of what was happening with Iran. This was long before anyone was talking about this. He said, "Yes, they know. They just don't know what to do."

Here's the deal: the region is now destabilized, and the turmoil threatens moderate Arab reformers. The heat is on. Also, while the bush administration may be concerned with foreign policy fallout, their greatest concern is retaining power. In their playbook, talking is weak and bombing is macho. Macho is their chosen image.

Wes said on fox when asked something close to what you have wondered: can we talk to Iran? He said, "I know they will...they talk to me." He has also said that talking to your friends is easy, it is talking to your enemies that is tough...and important. Where would we be today if we had refused to talk to the Soviet Union?

If we bomb Iran, what's the end game?" What happens next?

[Gregorian]

35. China.

I honestly think what would be next would be financial bombs. There is no military alternative. We're strung out. And nuclear isn't an option.

Clark is so inspiring. We are so due some civility and intelligence.

[lonestarnot]

43. What makes you think nukes are not an option?

[Gregorian]

45. Because they live here too.

That's pretty much mutual destruction.

I'm a pessimist, but even I can't imagine that. But I get your point. I think even these idiots are concerned about their survival.

[CarolNYC]

51. These comments about nuking Iran....

reminded me of an exchange I'd witnessed at a fundraiser that George Soros hosted for Wes Clark's WesPAC back in April. I went back to see what I'd written that night about Wes' and George's thoughts on the US nuking Iran....

Here's what I wrote as I remembered it upon getting back home from the event:

"Iran...He talked quite a bit about Iran.

He said we’ve got three choices...

1) We can negotiate with them
2) We can bomb them and try to take out their nuclear facilities
3) We can live with them having a nuclear weapon

He said right now, they are, at some level, negotiating, although the US refuses to negotiate directly. He doesn’t think that bombing them would solve anything and help the situation at all. He said he sees no end game if we choose to bomb....no way out once we start it.

Someone brought up the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on Iran and both Wes and George seemed to think that was highly unlikely. George interjected to point out the absurdity of the US using nuclear weapons to take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities....He said we certainly couldn’t do that with much conviction.....And Wes said that if the US uses nuclear weapons, the world will never be the same and the US’ place in the world will never be the same. If was a very dire moment in the conversation....scary to think about.

Wes also said that if it was any other president in the White House, he would think that we wouldn’t attack Iran but, with Bush in there, you never know. He said that spokesmen have said that Bush will take care of the Iranian situation before he leaves office...You can just imagine how he will “take care” of it.

The whole Iranian thing just sounds really scary. Wes said (as I’ve heard him say before) that extremism begets extremism. Our tough talk and threats against Iran just strengthen their position in the Middle East and the Muslim world as a country that will stand up to the US. The tougher we talk, the stronger we make the extremists in Iran’s position.

And George said something about the window in which anything at all can be accomplished as far as taking out Iran’s nuclear capabilities by attacking being much smaller than people realize because of something or other the Iranians are doing that will be completed by September. If anyone plans to attack Iran, be it Israel or the US, they are looking to do it before this thing is complete...I wish I knew better what he said...I was drifting for just a moment and lost a little bit of the discussion there...George also said something about the Russians wanting to provoke an attack so that Iran would have to depend more on them for the nuclear power....Both Wes and George said they were worried about the situation and they looked it...Scary stuff.....

Lewis Cohen asked Wes about Bush politicizing the Iranian situation and Wes said of course they would. He said he knew they would when at the beginning of the year...he might have said January 1st...he was out on the golf course when he got this urgent call from Fox News to get to the Little Rock studios to do a piece on the Iranian threat....He said they’ve been given the memo at Fox to ramp up the Iran talk....He also said, with a bit of a laugh, that one of the things he likes about working for Fox is that once a week he’s given the White House talking points...and he likes to know what the enemy is saying....."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5785

It was really a sobering exchange as I remember it....But, at least at that point, both Wes and George (who seems to be a really sweet man, BTW) seemed to think they wouldn't go so far as to use nukes....Yet, with this bunch, you never know...Scary indeed.

[Gregorian]

54. And they don't have a singular nuclear facility.

I believe it was Scott Ritter who mentioned that their nuclear facilities are scattered amongst civilian locations.

Somehow North Korea has to play a role as a comparison in all of this. But that's as silly as Wes and George using common sense.

I don't know what to say anymore, about the way things might go. There is no logic. It's like a bank robbery. Chaos.

Well, thanks for sharing your experience with those two great people.

I know someone who lives in Tehran. The hardest thing to do is not stay enraged all of the time. There will be no mercy for these clowns when their time comes. But there will be another group ready to take their place. I'm sorry, but I haven't had my coffee yet. Maybe I'll do that before I get any more pessimistic.

[CarolNYC]

60. a nuclear armed Iran

Hey, it's easy to be pessimistic with this bunch on power....even with coffee.

It was interesting, too, at the event, to hear someone entertain the possibility of learning to deal with a nuclear armed Iran. With all of the saber rattling about no how, no way can we allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons even if it means attacking the, coming from Republicans and Democrats alike, it was striking to be presented with a case where maybe we just have to figure out how to co-exist with an Iran that does have nuclear weapons.

It always strikes me as really presumptuous for the US to say other countries cannot have nukes even as we continue to have and develop them. Like, who appointed us the arbitor of who is allowed to have the same weapons we have and who is not, you know?

I know it's scary to think of Iran with nukes...but hey, to me, it's scary to think of us with nukes considering the lunatic we've put in charge.

[ribrepin]

7. Iran right in the middle between Iraq and Afghanistan

Classic hammer and anvil battle plan. The only problem for the Neo-cons is somebody doesn't like their ambitions for Iran. I don't know who is pulling the strings, but alot of bad news is coming out for the rethugs. I can only wonder about the next scandal. We've just had "these guys plan to nuke Iran-Seymour Hirsch", "Retired generals ask a sitting Secretary of Defense to step down in the middle of a war" and the most scandalous of all "Rethug caught in bed with a live boy." Oops, forgot Woodward's book. Old Bob isn't even pretending that the pub date is a coincidence.

Neo-Cons are in deep shit if they continue to try to invade Iran. We don't have the troops even if they draft everybody between 18 and 30. Somebody big thinks this is a shitty idea. The Bush administration hasn't listened to advice and now whoever is giving them really big hints. They probably won't listen now either, so stand by for a even bigger shit storm.

[civildisoBDence]

38. I suspect Iran has been the ultimate target from the beginning

but now DUHbya is learning a hard lesson--the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

I take that back--our troops and their families are learning that hard lesson. DUHbya is sitting there with a self-satisfied smirk believing history will regard him as the savior of freedom and democracy.

Newsprism

[leesa]

41. The targets are listed in the PNAC doctrine. Google it. The prize is

Egypt.

It's not JUST Iran. That's why blowing up the WTC was a small price for the Bush Crime Family to pay for the riches and power they imagined

[FrenchieCat]

9. When Wes Talks like this, Hell......I'm listening and believing....

I remember when he was talking to anyone about PNAC that would listen and they called him delussional.....yeah, Right!

Plus I was reading some posts about military movement that was occuring right now that was out of the norm. I read those posts here....just a couple of them.

That means we have got to fucking WIN the upcoming election! That's what that means! 2 more years with these fools in charge, and our country is finished totally! Down the toilet!

This is not good AT ALL!

[chill_wind]

10. How many ways do we have to be warned

and by how many credible men?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

12. It's just one more way W and the neo-cons have sold us out.

See the KO thread on his comments last night.

[chill_wind]

16. Only 15 DU comments? Hmmmm. Kicking. nt

[allisonthegreat]

17. thanks for the link..n/t

[Totally Committed]

18. I always get nervous when Wes Clark says things like this...

He's usually right.

TC

[David Zephyr]

23. Thanks for the heads up, Tom

Thanks.

[Jeroen]

24. K&R

[glitch]

26. K & R for God Dammit. :( nt

[Kurovski]

27. K&R.

A strongly worded warning from Wes Clark.

[barb162]

28. Clark:"We are stretched flat out."

Which means we aren't going Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Wrong, Never think for a moment that Clark doesn't know how to add 2 + 2

It is foolishness in the extreme to apply information that Clark openly reveals and is obviously much more familiar with than you or I (the current state of our military), as evidence to disprove Clark's specific and dead serious warning. Clark knows exactly how stretched our military is AND he believes that the Bush Administration is still predisposed to attack Iran. If that makes no sense to you then you are missing the point. It doesn't have to make sense to you or I in order for it to make sense to Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld etc.

Invading Iraq made no sense. People in Iraq were NEVER going to greet us with flowers. Sending American troops into Iraq was ALWAYS a prescription for "super charging Al Quada recruitment". The stripped down troop levels that Rumsfeld insisted on for invading and occupying Iraq against the direct advice of his Senior Army commander was completely wrong from the moment that Rumsfeld conceived of it. Etc. etc. etc.

An attack on Iraq would primarily be an air attack augmented by small numbers of special service operatives on the ground. That part isn't a problem for America's current military state of readiness. Very few troops will be needed for phase One. The Air Force is the only branch of America's military that is not stretched flat out. Hussein never challenged the American Air Force because his Air Force was pathetic compared to it. Our bombers are not being shot out of the Iraq sky, only an occasional helicopter. We have enough Cruise missiles to attack Iran, when we use those up Bush will borrow money from America's health care and education needs to buy more.

Ah, but what about Phase Two you might say. Bush never plans for a Phase Two, that is part of what we are up against. He assumes there is only one phase, and when that is over Mission will be accomplished. Clark has said that the United States can set back Iran's nuclear program for a number of years with an almost exclusive air campaign that will be over in a couple of weeks, that part is relatively straight forward, and that is the picture that Cheney and crowd gaze lovingly at. That is where they hit the pause button on their intellectual video. Who knows what their fantasy is from that point on? That the people of Iran will rise up and overthrow the now humiliated Religious rulers? That Iran will be taught a stern lesson not to go rattling sabers at the U.S. the way Qaddafi was in Libya when we bombed him there? That a war of civilizations is unavoidable so the U.S. shouldn't be shy about landing the next blow before one is landed against us?

I sure as hell don't understand their thinking because to me it is obviously crazy, but that hasn't stopped this Administration from acting in completely crazy ways, when the legitimate security of America lies in the balance. If Clark is worried, I am worried.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Phase Two as I envision it.

Phase Two, Iran retaliates against our strike by hitting at our vulnerable soldiers right next door in Iraq, resulting in large scale casualties. This serves as an immediate casus belli for an all out war, as opposed to the limited strikes they had originally planned on. With this casus belli in place, it will be easy to justify the necessity of reinstating the draft, and we will procede into a state of total war in Iran. This will mean that we'll be occupying one single contiguous area stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan and containing over 100,000,000 people.

If this scenario happens, it will be genuinely catastrophic. The disasters that we have going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are somewhat self-limiting, but there's no way that that could be sustained if we added Iran to the mix.

Sometimes I think that they're not crazy enough to try something like that. Then I look at the rest of their record and realize that they are.

At any rate, if Wes is worried, that's a signal that this is a serious possibility IMHO.

[IndianaGreen]

31. It is disturbing how Clark is being ignored by the media

If it weren't' for the DU Clarkies posting his speeches in DU, I wouldn't even know that he existed!

Clark is right on target, and his doomsday scenario warnings should not be ignored. Bush has shown how dangerous and unstable he is. Cheney and Condi are pathological liars, and Rumsfeld is certifiably insane. These are the people with their finger on the nuclear trigger!

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Clark has been getting extensive local coverage during this swing

around the nation appearing with Democrats running for office, but you are right that the National media seldom mentions him. When Clark is one of our Party spokespersons at a Press Conference, the national media tends to work around that by ingnoring our Party.

[IndianaGreen]

34. And that is a shame for Clark is saying something that all need to hear!

Our nation stands at the edge of the precipice while being led by a man as deluded as Caligula!

[Donna Zen]

37. It is the military thing:

Powell may seem more famous, but Powell is not more decorated than Clark. Nor is Powell smarter. But the gatekeepers have decided that the military is a republican stronghold, and that Democrats are anti-military. If Clark had joined the republican party, he would be showcased. There are 56,000,000 voters associated with the military in some way, and living in red states. Can you imagine the major reallignment if Clark was allowed to be heard? I also don't doubt that some of the "stars" in the Democratic party would not want to be upstaged. Finally, Wes is stumping for Democrats not for himself. Sounds trite, but it's true.

[civildisoBDence]

39. Wes Clark's eyes look eerily like Dwight Eisenhower's

Eisenhower warned us against the military industrial complex (now the petrofascist regime of DUHbya.)

Clark sees with the same kind of uncanny prescience.

Newsprism

[Bucky]

55. That's because they *ACTUALLY ARE* Dwight Eisenhower's eyes!! OMG!

It's not widely reported, but as Ike was lying in his deathbed in 1965, Mamie Eisenhower had her husband's eyeballs physically removed, pickled, and shipped off to West Point so that the great general could continue to monitor the growing military industial complex from beyond the grave. Like his hero Clemenceau, Eisenhower believed in eternal vigilence.

Almost ten years later, a young professor at West Point came that Mason Jar of Destiny and, realizing the awesome powers of the Eyeballs that Destroyed Fascism, had his own eyes replaced and thereby gained the awe-inspiring vision that promises to guide us once again away from the wilderness of militarism and despair. That professor was Major Wesley Kanne-do Clark.

And Weslay is NOT a girl's name.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. LOL

Hey, we can use some new Camelot legends. Can we somehow tie this into Lord of the Rings also? I understand that Tolkien found a hidden code carved into Michelangelo's Pieta that revealed the location of hidden real manuscripts that survived from a prior lost epoch of Earth. It's all true!

[leesa]

40. It's absolutely all they have left. And Israel has commanded it.

[LetsThink]

48. It's Not in the Interest of Israel to Have War in the Middle East.....

.... A destabilized Middle East is NOT in Israel's interest. They would do anything to AVOID having a war with neighbors who surround them and outnumber them many times over. Forget any supposed technology advantage - it is not effective in the type of war waged in that part of the world- as Israel's recent fight with Lebanon clearly illustrated.

Before the mid-east became unstable, before our poorly shielded and underforce troops arrived in the arena, Israel had made significant advances in diplomatic relations with its neighbors by applying lessons from the British-Irish conflict: Many programs were running that brought children and adolescents from the Arab Muslim and Israeli-Jewish and Christian cultures together for common projects. Some of the most popular themes were exploration of the natural environment, common cultural themes, focus and guided groups on conflict resolution among hand-selected pre-teens and teens. There were also cooperative medical, community health and education programs started which were bringing relief to those in the population most at risk for radicalization. This is how long-standing conflicts are eventually resolved- by painstaking work at the local and individual level..... Not by high-tech wars.

These programs, and the hard-won progress in building bridges between all the various cultural groups, are now lost. With escalating conflict and renewed reliance on military solutions to these regional conflicts, it may well be a full generation before the damage can be repaired and these hopeful programs restarted.

War in the Middle East is NOT in the interests of Israel.......

[fooie]

46. New twist on Valerie Plame?

If we combine two stories, one from The Raw Story back in February: "Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say" (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html) and another from the Washington Post back in August 2005: "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. - Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements", we arrive at an interesting possibility. Putting two and two together, we might guess that the outing of Valerie Plame was really intended to neutralize the United States' most effective source of accurate intelligence about the Iranian nuclear program. An administration which has already decided to attack Iran would certainly wish to cover up data which suggests that Iran is much further from a nuclear weapon than its propaganda would lead us to believe.

[Sparkly]

47. When the General talks, I listen. He knows what he's talking about.

Seriously scary.... K&R. :kick:

[FrenchieCat]

49. K & R ......just for the seriousness of it all!

Shit!

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. It's hard to take in how serious this is, isn't it?

My mind rebels against it and I am puled to just tune it out; "Nah, that can't REALLY happen." Except this Administration is very capable of blundering us right into it. They are following Bin Ladin's script for unifying muslims against the West every step of the way.


I really doubt that Bush will do anything to strike before the elections. That is too blatent even for them, it would open them up to too many charges of political interference, obviously stopping Iran's nuclear program could wait another 6 weeks. But if Republican retain Congress, Bush will declare that his mandate. We have to concentrate on winning these electrions.

[Bucky]

53. You know how highly I regard Wes, but chances of war w/Iran are near nil

It makes okay stump rhetoric, so I'll give him a walk here. But despite the sabre rattling, both sides--Iran and the neocons--have much, much more to lose against almost nothing to gain in starting a war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. I don't think it's stump rhetoric. We'll have to disagree there

Clark doesn't operate that way, proclaiming to have fears that he does not really have, he simply does not. War and Peace is too central an issue to his life for him to play political games over it. Carol noted above in a post, that at a prior event Clark stated he could not imagine any other American President making such a strategic mistake, but he doesn't have that confidence with Bush.

What other President, at the very least, would not have arranged for Donald Rumsfeld to gracefully step down (if not out right fire him) at the end of Bush's first term, a traditional time for cabinet reshuffling, using the pretext of the President needing fresh blood? The military revolted against Rumsfeld, major Senators in his own Party expressed sever doubts, Rumsfeld was tied to the torture scandals, Rumsfeld refused to follow military advice and put the troops that were needed into Iraq to secure it and the whole world knows what happened next. Rumsfeld is a huge political drag on this President, but this President sticks with him, because this President in a true believer in the U.S. now needing to take on the terrorists in the Middle East, with firm resolve, no matter what the consequences, because terrorists are planning to come get us here if we don't. So Rumsfeld is still his man.

I read elsewhere, in some transcript at Clark's web site, that Clark knows that Cheney and Rumsfeld are strongly pushing for U.S. military action against Iran. Clark said that the only significant resistance to that course of action now, inside the Bush Administration, comes from Condi Rice. That's how frightening it is, Rice as the voice of common sense. Yet the way Clark hears it, she is not adamantly opposed to military action against Iran, so her objections might be withdrawn at some point. Clark said that currently Rice is the only force inside the Bush Administration blocking consensus for military action against Iran.

[CarolNYC]

59. Yep, one only needs to see

Wes talk about this and the urgency in his voice and eyes when he does to know this is really serious...and not just rhetoric.

[Bucky]

61. Let me tell you exactly why there won't be a war with Iran

I look at history. I'm supposed to teach history for a living and most days of the week I earn my paycheck. The history of the Bush dynasty does not involve attacking strong countries. They never have. I don't think they have it in them. The wars the Bush dynasty have started have been against: Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and then Iraq again. Of these, only Somalia was not led by former CIA employees. They go after weakened former puppets. They are scared to deal with North Korea and they only started making serious noise about Iran after they needed a boogie man for the 2006 elections.

Militarily and diplomatically, Iran has us stalemated. The warship deployments there are somewhat tinny-sounding sabre rattling. We have no ground forces to occupy anything we bomb in Iran. We have no viable options for an effective airstrike against Iran's nuclear program or missile program--it's too spread out. The military retaliation from Iran alone would shut down the Persian Gulf. If the ruling Council of Experts know what they're doing (and it's pretty clear that they do), their diplomatic retaliation would turn the US into a pariah nation. And Clark of course addresses what the reaction would be on the streets of the Muslim world--a billion people overnight converted into life-long America haters.

Maybe Clark really thinks that in their guts the Bushies want to hit Iran. But if he is half the strategist his books show him to be, he knows Iran is in zero danger from the US military. Iran is not a threat because they can hit us. Clark's addressed our regional rivalry with Iran many times. They are a threat because what they can do and never attack us.

Finally, is Mr Clark really saying there's any threat of war with Iran? No. Having read the full transcript of the speech you quoted, I don't believe he is saying that.

And that's my greatest concern. If we don't get our Democrats in office, around America and in the Congress in Washington, this administration is going to take us to war with Iran, and try to start a war with a billion people. People of the Islamic faith. There's no reason to do it. In my view. There's a solution to the problem we face.

He calls it a concern, but when he gets to talking about specifics, he only talks about the fighting in Iraq. Clark then adds:

I'd like to tell you this administration was too cowardly to talk with people it doesn't agree with. But of course, that's not true. It's not cowardice. What they still harbor is the intent to attack the governments of Syria and Iran and therefore they block any diplomatic dialog. And the consequence has been that they dump the problem of Iraq on our good men and women in uniform and they force them to try to treat it as a military problem when it is not applicable.

That's a bit of a non-sequiter (something you rarely, if ever, hear from Clark). What does talking with Iran have to do with ending the fighting in Iraq? The issues are unrelated--Iran (unlike Syria) is not contributing to terror groups in Iraq. They are supporting Shiite militias in the south and around Baghdad, but that was in reaction to sectarian terrorism targeting Shiites that the US and Iraqi were failing to control. The Shia terrorists are breakaway groups pissed off at the Sadrists for cooperating with the Americans.

Clark's larger point is that a failure to dialog with rivals and opponents in the Middle East is creating spin-off problems and the Bushies are doing nothing about it. When he talks specifics, he doesn't mention or seem to anticipate actual combat in the planning against Iran.

Is he being disingenuous when he says the Bushie want to attack? Not really. The neocons have been bringing up the topic, they are driving the debate about containing Iran in this direction because it serves to keep people scared. Clark responds to this by pointing out that the neocons' very actions and policies are preventing peace. This is smart rhetoric, but it's only a warning against (and not a prediction of) wars to come.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Bucky, I would like nothing better than for you to be right

Far as I'm concerned, you can take everything that we know about the Bush dynesty and throw it out the window, I think Junior strayed off the family farm. The attempt was made to get family top gun James Baker to replace Rumsfeld and Junior wouldn't hear it. Junior is a virtual fundie now, beholden to a different crowd, and that changed all the equations.

I am at a disadvantage here because I am not logged on from home, I am away on a work trip so I don't have any of my bookmarks available, so I can't put my hands easily on other comments that Clark made about the U.S. and Iran. Regarding the American Armed Forces ability to disrupt Iran's nuclear program, Clark discussed this at length once wearing his hat as FOX Security commentater. Clark believes the U.S. has the military intelligence and ability to seriously disrupt Iran's nuclear program, setting back their ability to produce nuclear weapons by at least a few years. He was unambiguous about that, though Clark could not predict exactly how many years it would take for Iran to rearm itself with nuclear weapons should they desire doing so, or how either Pakistan or North Korea might intervene with technological help to speed up Iran's ability. But that was the least of Clark's concerns, there are numerous ways that Iran could retaliate against the U.S. and our interests that do not involve nuclear weapons, and people in that region of the world hold generations long "grudges". But can the U.S. military achieve short term success taking out Iran's nuclear program? Clark believes it can.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. P.S. Clark does believe talking or not talking with Iran effects Iraq

Clark beleives the issues are directly related and he has said so repeatedly. When he calls for Regional diplomacy to include Iraq'a neighbors, Iran features prominantly along twith Syria. Put simply, as long as the U.S. is antagonistic toward Iran, Clark thinks Iran wants instability inside of Iraq in order to keep the U.S. bogged down with Iraq, and Iran has many tools it can use inside Iraq to promote a level of instability sufficient to meet their political ends.