Faux news just had Wes Clark on to talk about.... Iran

[sabra]

Essentially Clark said the military option should be on the table. And if they would attack, it would be primarily an aerial attack, with prolly 6-7 days of bombings. Though he did re-iterate, that first and for most dialog is essential. He emphasized that the US and Iran have had no forms of dialog or communication.

:scared:

[peaches2003]

1. Of course we are going into Iran

The destruction of Iraq is just so 'yesterday' for Bush. He's bored again and getting that itchy trigger finger.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. All in the plans

They need to continue that pipeline.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. I CAN'T HEAR YOU

I have decided to just pretend Iran doesn't even exist. I don't think I can handle it. I really don't.

[kineneb]

31. and I have family in Iran

Step-father is from Iran, much extended family still lives there. I sure don't want to try to explain why the US is attacking my family there. AArrggh.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. Oh geez

you can't play along, then. Too real to you.

[MADem]

16. Please don't say that

I just do not want to go. And I will end up back in uniform if that happens.

Shit, shit, shit. Impeachment cannot happen soon enough for me.

[wakeme2008]

2. Clark is drinking the kool-aid....

Knowing the military that Iran has, no military man could say, "primarily a 6-7day aerial attack". :grr:.. Iran would hit back hard with everything they had.

[hlthe2b]

9. Clark is not promoting this... but rather revealing what he has

learned from his military contacts.. Clark is one who NEVER EVER supported the Iraq war. Thus, I don't get your point...He joins Scott Ritter in assessing that this is the coming plan of the BUshies*. Neither are supporting the action-- just revealing it.

[sabra]

11. I agree, it didn't appear to be his opinion more how he see it

possibly playing out. He also noted that the info wasn't classified info, more just analysis etc...

[wakeme2008]

19. But a SMART military man would have said,,

Iran would fight back and it could become a major war. But Clark didn't did he.

[hlthe2b]

23. I'm sure Faux news gave him unlimited time to submit his own

views-- they always do for progressive libs, now don't they?

[jobycom]

20. Clark took the same basic approach to Iraq

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear."

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

--------------------

Clark's statements before the House Armed Services Committee were prescient, cautious, and accurate as to his predictions of what would happen if we did this poorly, but he was in perfect agreement with the majority in Congress--Democrats and moderate Republicans--as to using force. He wanted it to be a last resort, but certainly an option. Just as both Clintons, John Kerry, and even Joe Lieberman wanted.

So his stance that force should be an option of last resort on the table concerning Iran is exactly the same as his stance concerning Iraq.

By the way, read his entire statement. Well said, though he was wrong in his trust in Bush and his belief that Iraq had weapons. His call for a unanomous resolution authorizing force if diplomatic efforts failed no doubt influenced the votes of people like Clinton and Kerry. Sadly, his call for exhausting all diplomatic options and turning Iraq over as quickly to the Iraqis as possible if we did invade were ignored by BushCo.

[Clark2008]

28. It wasn't that he trusted Bush's assessment that Iraq had WMDs

It was common "knowledge" from our intelligence that Saddam had them - though, as Clark and many others have said, that intelligence was WRONG.

Clark advocated backing up that intelligence with inspections that Bush wouldn't allow to complete. Had we done what Clark and Scott Ritter and Bliz recommended and had thorough inspections, then we would have know the intelligence was incorrect.

[jobycom]

37. Good distinction, except one point

There was a lot of evidence that the intel was fixed, or at least shaky. Clark did choose to believe Bush's evidence, as did many Democrats. I don't blame Clark for it, but I get frustrated at hearing how superior he supposedly was in his opposition to the invasion, when his opinion was no different than most Democrats who voted for the IWR. There were a lot of us here on DU who did not beleive there were WMDs. There were a handful of senators and reps who did not, either. It wasn't "common" knowledge, the way Bush wants us to believe it was. That's just winner's revisionism. Even the intel agencies of France, Germany and Russia claimed they had seen no evidence of nuclear WMDs in Iraq. Bush's voice was the loudest, but it wasn't the only one.

I've read a lot of Gore speeches from around that time, and he avoids mentioning nuclear weapons. I get the impression he didn't believe they existed, either, but wanted to avoid the issue because his opposition to the invasion was based more on policy than expediency. I could be wrong, though. I'm sure I haven't read everything he said.

[Clark2008]

39. Sort of - but Clark at least made caveats.

He pushed a process that should be followed for the IWR to work, but Bush didn't follow it and Congress didn't reign him back in (as Clark suggested they could have) when he obviously was going to go to war before the diplomacy worked.

But, you won't find me complaining too incredibly much about the Dems who supported the IWR because they relied on this same information, which was obviously incorrect.

What I do find fault with is that they, now, won't admit they were duped and want to continue this charade, with a few exceptions.

I also don't like the final version on which they voted that gives Bush carte blanche to bomb any country he deems necessary in his phony "war on terra."

[MADem]

21. Iranians are INCREDIBLY nationalistic

There is quite a bit of political dissent, but they are very, very proud people, with an incredibly rich history. They pride themselves as being the epicenter of civilization in the region, different from the desert-wandering Arabs, with a rich culture, incredible literature, a long and glorious past, stunning architecture (not everywhere, mind, but the stuff that is good is GREAT), and despite their political upheavals, they see the big picture and take the long view. They value knowledge and education, they know how to have a bit of fun (truly--we do not see it, but they have a real enthusiasm for life, get the irony, and can laugh and be quite lighthearted) and they have some great food, too (always a mark of a sophisticated culture, IMO).

They aren't gonna let ANYONE waltz in, by land, sea or air, and subjugate them. It won't be a "cakewalk" and we will NOT be greeted with sweets and flowers, if it does happen. Hell, I lived there, I understand the mindset. You'd think this administration would have one single, solitary fucker on staff who GETS THIS SHIT.

But apparently, they don't. (Insert designated deity/deities here) help us all....

[kineneb]

34. Yes, they are

I have lived there, too, and still have family there. They are my adopted family (actually I was legaly adopted into the family). I have made the same comments on DU before about Iran.

My visiting Persian grandmother cooked a wonderful lunch for me on Boxing Day, when I exchanged gifts with my family. Menu: Lubia Polou (basmati rice w/green beans & lamb), persian peroshki (tumeric flavored potato patty w/chicken) and homemade torshi (pickled vegetables).

We all need to go back to the basic rules set out by Zoroaster, the first proponent of monotheism:

Think good thoughts, say good words, do good deeds.

[papau]

26. Is Iran already at full war status with the US via Hez and other surrogates

I am not certain that Iran could project her power against the US more than she is already doing so.

However, if the goal is a "Bushland" country resulting in the Mideast, coming from our efforts that consist of a 5 more year war with Iran attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, well it is about time we had a 51st state that had its own oil.

Indeed adding Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia together may get us a state bigger than Texas!

:-(

[stray cat]

3. Is he talking limited airstrikes on nuclear facilities

or something more widespread?

[sabra]

5. he was referring to limited air strikes on nuclear facilities

[stray cat]

24. Thanks!

[cornermouse]

4. Well, when Clark says the dialog comes first, I suspect he means it.

As we all know now, Bush never did.

[BushOut06]

6. why, why , why, why?

We don't even know that Iran is working on nuclear weapons! All we have is the Gopher King and the intelligence agencies' word for this one...and we know how that worked out last time. Is Iran a bad boy? Yes. Do they have a habit of sponsoring terrorists? Sometimes - but primarily Palestinian terrorists in Israel, so that should be Israel's problem, not ours.

What good could possibly come from an attack on Iran? Even if they do have nukes or are working on nukes, we're not going to be able to take them out with a conventional strike, and I doubt we would risk worldwide condemnation and isolation by using nukes. All it would do is further inflame the region, possibly getting China or Russia directly involved. Does anyone really think Russia wants American troops at its borders?

[CrazyForKucinich]

7. Ridiculous

Exactly why I could never support the man.

A military option to attack a country that has not harmed us? Clark is as bad as Bush. I can't believe he has as much support as he does on this board.

[Clark2008]

29. He's not advocating this!

He's revealing what BushCo. is going to do!

Dear Lord - didn't you read the OP well?

Clark knows this would start WWIII (or WWIV, if you consider the Cold War to be WWIII). Clark is pointing out what his contacts at the Pentagon and the DOJ are telling him.

Geesch.

[LunaC]

10. Details of what we're up against

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x33521

[davsand]

13. Don't they need approval from Congress to even do air strikes?

Am I wrong in thinking that they'd have to have some kind of approval from the Congress to do an air strike anyplace other than Afghanistan or Iraq?

I'm not sure Congress would approve it--even IF they leaned privately on the GOP members.


Laura

[Clark2008]

30. No - Congress, in the most idiotic move EVER, gave Bush

carte blanche to start aggression on anyone and everything if Bush declares them a part of the "war on terror."

Congress, the dimwits, have already approved this.

[ultraist]

14. Clark works for Fox, doesn't he?

Didn't he take a job as a military analyst with Fox News sometime back?

[elfin]

25. Don't read too much into that

He is already "known" in the past by CNN and MSNBC - this contract with Faux gets him and his name in front of a new populace which never watched those outlets and which may have some moderate Repug defectors if the candidate appeals to them.

I would like to know when his contract as a spokesman with Faux is up - I want to see him, and NEVER view the dark side.

And by the way, he appeals to me, even if I am a progressive/liberal Democrat.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. That's why we're in Iraq...well, one of the reasons.

It's part of the PNAC agenda. We needed Iraq for a staging area to attack Iran and Syria. Looks like Iran is first.:grr:

[MessiahRp]

22. Doesn't the PNAC blueprint include European strategic targets?

Their dreams of an American Empire are so ridiculously flawed and outdated.

I always say this to the Republicans who admit to agreeing with this:
Name an Empire that didn't fall.

Rp

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. The PNAC agenda includes the WORLD. Iraq, Iran and Syria are just

the beginning.:scared:

H-E-G-E-M-O-N-Y



hegemony


(hjm´n, h–, hj´m´´n, hg´–) (KEY) , , dominance, originally of one Greek city-state over others, the term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following Gramsci, of one class over others. Conflict over hegemony fills history from the war between Athens and Sparta to the Napoleonic wars, World Wars I and II, and the Cold War. Gramsci’s use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture. 1
See K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline (1985).

[spanone]

17. How else can they distract from the trainwreck in Iraq?

Perpetual war. That's the bush* legacy.

[rucky]

18. What's the attraction here? n/t

[Clark2008]

33. With what?

With Clark telling us, for the millioneth time, what BushCo. is going to do?

Clark's been spot-on accurate with everything: from the motives of these domino wars in the Middle East (Clark was the ONLY primary candidate in 2004 to mention the PNAC) to the fact that Baghdad would easily fall, but we'd be opening up a can of insurgency never before seen outside of Vietnam.

Clark tells the truth. Just don't mistake it for his ideas - he's not supporting this. He's revealing BushCo.'s next move.

[graywarrior]

32. Can I just say how much I hate

Bush?

[Beelzebud]

35. Yeah and Iraq will only take a few weeks.

Clark just lost a lot of points in my book...

[Clark2008]

36. That's not what he said at all.

He said that attacks on Iran's nuclear capabilities would take a few weeks - that this is the time-frame that BushCo. would use.

He didn't give his opinion on what would happen past that point - and wasn't really given time to do so.

I'll await a compliation of his work - which he more than likely will post on either his website or as an op-ed somewhere - about what he thinks will happen beyond that point before he "loses any points" in my book.

[oasis]

38. There's plenty of troops to occupy Iran after "Mission Accomplished II".

Not.