Clark Bogging Live at Kos Regarding Iran, NOW!

[Tom Rinaldo]

"Is War with Iran Inevitable?"
by Wes Clark

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

[Adelante]

1. Interesting diplomacy point

Bargaining (11+ / 0-)

In entering discussions with Iran, we shouldn't be bargaining...we should be trying to establish a new way of looking at the region.. we should be discussing problems, trying to create agreement on principles, and looking for next steps to widen the dialog.

Bargaining never works well in diplomacy...it's about relationships...

As for weakness now, well, yes and no. It is certainly true that our Army and Marines can't fix Iraq, please understand that our major leverage has always been organizational and economic. We strongly influence all the organizations which affect Iran - everything from WTO and G-8 down to and including OPEC...so we actually have plenty of leverage....we jsut need to commence an "unconditional" dialog.

by Wes Clark on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:47:24 AM PST

[FrenchieCat]

2. The General is clearly concerned, and I am hearing about Iran more and more

on the news as this is all been racheted up.....
While Wes Clark is still warning on this.

"I believe some in the Administration have seen this confrontation as inevitable - or have sought it - since late 2001."

Problem is most folks are so "Confident" that Bush can't start any shit with Iran, they are taking their eyes off the ball, not realizing that the Bush Administration is retarded enough to start some stuff, either on purpose or accidently...

I believe that many progressives are being too cavelier about this whole issue. Thinking we know what the Bush admin will and will not do. They are busy in discussing Iraq.....not realizing that it's all part of the same strategic (no)plan.

[TwilightZone]

4. I don't understand why people can't see the parallels.

We've heard it all before. It's the exact same BS rhetoric that Bush was spouting before invading Iraq.

I hope we're not stupid enough to bomb/invade Iran, but I also believe that the Bush administration is capable of pretty much anything. If people think Bush "can't" invade Iran, they haven't been paying attention.

[FrenchieCat]

6. We are too busy anointing the next "no foreign policy" experience candidate

for the 2008 election. And that is exactly where they want us. Busy as hell about nothing...while they rachet up the rethoric and sell their bushit to the American masses who don't know any better....cause they are too busy speculating about Anna Nicole and diaper wearing Astronaut stalkers. :eyes:

[TwilightZone]

8. Willful ignorance

People are either blind or stupid. It's all right there in black and white in the PNAC agenda. It's public information, for heaven's sake!

Clark's been warning the public about it for years, yet he seems to be the only one who gets it, even now.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Multi tasking is a difficult concept.....

folks would rather not believe that it is even possible, than to have to think that we may witness the same bushit in a slightly different package.

Notice to footage of the weaponry on TeeVee, identified as Iranian weapons starting yesterday.

The media is starting its work to gain public support for action again Iran.

[TwilightZone]

14. It's disappointing

The media and the public were both showing signs that they were seeing through the administration's games, but that progress seems to have been an illusion.

You would think that they'd get tired of getting lied to, at some point. Guess not.

[Adelante]

3. Threat

I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat...And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!

by Wes Clark on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:57:28 AM PST

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yes, I've notice the slow escalation and racheting up of news on Iran.....

So when Wes observes......"I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat"

it should be obvious to anyone watching any news.....

But again, I think that many progressives are being lax on this.....and not understanding that the Bush administration is capable of anything...in particular when we least expect it. These progressives are already into election 2008.....and think that BushCO wouldn't dare. We haven't learned any lessons, I guess....that they would dare.

Bush Admin wants to blame Iran for the mess in Iraq....and so basically, what they are doing is again for political as well as PNAC purposes.

[Cameron27]

20. There's a real sense of urgency

in Wes that worries me.

The last part of that reply -- "And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!"

by Wes Clark on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:57:28 AM PST
----------------------------------------------------------------

He must be conveying that message to the Democrats in Congress, behind the scenes...at least I hope so, and I hope they act on his warning.

Aside from that, he's a remarkable writer and manages to be eloquent and down to earth at the same time.

Yea Wes!
:applause:

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Clark used one word that was really really chilling to see

Incumbencies. As in:

"But this is a struggle that will be costly for all involved, will further isolate the region, and whose ultimate outcome is likely to be decided by future incumbencies."

Clark is predicting that if the U.S. attacks Iran the conflict that follows will continue through more than one future Presidency. Think about that.

[Adelante]

7. Congressional leverage

The real problem isn't the troop strength - it is and has been all along the strategy the Administration has pursued for the region. The purpose of any Resolution is to demonstrate strength of resistance to the President's strategy- so a non binding resolution is ok as a first step if it gets a broad measure of support. But in order to affect the president's strategy, the Democrats have to threaten something the President wants. This is what our Congressional leadership should be working on...is it confirmation of judges, approval of budget requests, supplementals, or whatever...the power of the purse, as well as the power to investigate, are essential powers of the Congress. I would like to see our top Congressional leaders go to the White House - after they've shown they have the leverage - and force the President to modify his strategy. I've pretty much explained what the strategy should be...but the key question now is, do we have the Congressional leverage?

by Wes Clark on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:36:11 AM PST

[judy from nj]

9. I'm glad that he is talking about Iran

I think there is a limited window to stop Bush from making an even greater strategic blunder in the middle east. I'm not very hopeful though that we can stop this.

[CarolNYC]

11. Me too...

I'm glad Wes continues to speak out. He been doing this for years now. I wish he had more help....but even then, I just don't know if it can be stopped at this point.

It's terrifying, really.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Especially with everyone's eyes off the ball....wishing that it is impossible....

not understanding that nothing is impossible.

I'm bookmarking this, so that I'll be able to show folks what it looked like when we could have cumulatively done something to stop this....like contact our congresspeople and warn them in no uncertain terms that the saber rattling PR and rethoric referencing Iran is transparent....

[TwilightZone]

15. Iran is a legitimate threat. Iraq wasn't, yet look how that turned out.

Iran has a real military and significantly more resources than Iraq did. Backlash is inevitable.

If the public is unhappy with the casualties in Iraq, just wait until we invade/bomb Iran.

[Schema Thing]

13. My candidate is cooler than your candidate.

Only us Clarkies can truly say that, lol. :D


Seriously though... no one else running could blog like that. No handlers, real policy talk, no rhetoric.

[Clark2008]

22. LOL!

We need a bumper sticker. :7

[NCarolinawoman]

25. No handlers, real policy talk........

That is why I listen to him.

He speaks from the wisdom he has gained over the years. He has seen it all. He knows the players in the region, both good and bad.

Wes Clark's son says his father always sees the good in people, I always wonder why he has not turned cynical.......I am thankful that he has not.

[incapsulated]

16. Clark's responses in the blog

Helpfully listed by machopicasso here, there are at least nine:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478#c381

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. From a post I made on that Kos Diary:

"This is a mobilization call, this is a call to link arms to stop another military disaster. This is a chance for people of slightly differing viewpoints to find common ground is stopping a common threat to all of us; War with Iran.

General Clark is exercising real leadership in sticking his neck out this far on a "liberal" activist message board to state in indelible virtual print that the Bush Administration is bent on taking us into a war with Iran that should and can be averted...

... there is a Presidential campaign already begun. There are different Democrats out there auditioning to lead America for four years starting in 2009. Theoretically all of them are talking about the important issues they feel should be raised with the American public, right?

So who else out there is sounding the alarm that Wes Clark is clearly sounding here? Who else is not merely saying; "we should talk with Iran" but actually saying that the Bush Administration is on the verge of starting a war with Iran if we the people and our elected Representitives don't do something now to stop him?


Please view Clark's kos Diary. This matter is literally deadly serious.

[Auntie Bush]

19. Thanks for the alert Tom.

That was a great read. Wes has so much to offer this nation! But more important...he NEEDS to KNOW so many of us support him. He needs to be confident that we will follow him and that he can win this election! He must run! I'm so afraid he might think he has little chance to win with all the Osama/Hillary media hype...and not run. I will give such a sigh of relief when he enters this race. He's giving me insomnia.

Thanks again for alerting us Wes was blogging on Kos.

[Boo Boo]

18. kick! /nt

[welshTerrier2]

23. and there's no telling who that it's naming

i am truly sorry i was not able to participate in this exchange with General Clark.

i've read some, not all, of the live "bogging" :hi: (sorry, Tom - couldn't help myself)

I'd like to hear some reaction from Clarkies on the following comment I have:

Some have said, in weighing his decision about whether to run or not, Clark is considering whether he would be a more effective voice inside or outside the 2008 campaign. I've heard that, by remaining outside, his words will not be seen as "politically compromised". Perhaps that's true. But his words today will NOT receive much media attention (imo). Hillary's pants suit or Obama's cigarettes or Edwards' bloggers will continue to clutter the headlines as the war ships move closer and closer. Just "jumping in" to the race doesn't buy you much airtime either. The deadly trio is a combination of jumping into the race and taking a clear and strong position on both Iraq and Iran and, and this one brings out the press like ants at a picnic, putting "your case in the face" of the big name frontrunners and demanding that they speak out in response to you. you want to put your message on the front page? put it right in the face of the people who now are cluttering up the front page.

So, there it is. Clark can sit on the periphery with the "writers and critics who prophesize with your pens" or he can park himself right out there on Main Street and let the battle be joined. Clark's voice is badly needed in this race. No, this is far from an endorsement. It's just a boatload of encouragement for him to run.

If Clark wants to lead a real movement against bush's war in Iran, I'll be happy to do what I can to support the cause. Campaign support? That's a different matter. As the song says: "And don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin; and there's no telling who that it's naming."

[Adelante]

26. To clarify one point

"Politically compromised" applies in part to his dealings with Congress, where he is fiercely lobbying them to fight Bush on Iran. He feels he would not be as influential on both sides of the aisle, but also with the current candidates, if he is running for office at this time. I don't think his intention ultimately is to sit on the periphery, but for the time being he sees we are in a national emergency and he can be of best use in the fight if he is not campaigning. Besides, there really is plenty of time for the primary race, but very little to stop the war race.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. It's all pretty high stakes, isn't it? War and Peace...

It doesn't get more serious than this. I can't disagree with your analysis WT2. It is my hope that Clark has been trying to maximize both the insider and outsider strategy with the timing of his entrance into the race. This has been Clinton's and Obama's roll out month anyway. I'm not sure it would have given Clark any advantage to announce three weeks ago rather than a week from now as a result of that.

It honestly seems that Clark believes that strong arm pressure tactics against Bush by Congress, coupled with some back room serious threats and possibly minimal dealing (maybe shelve an embarrasing investigation or two in return for not going to war with Iran) is the only thing that can stop Bush from attacking Iran. So that would explain the importance Clark may be giving his behind the scenes efforts with Congress that Maxine Waters alluded to. But even if that is true, there are too many Democrats in Congress (and some otside Congress) who are afraid to protest saber rattling against Iran too strongly, so can Democrats in Congress present a strong and united enough front?

My opinion probably lines up with yours WT2. I think Clark has to shift to an outside game in order to mobilize public sentiment against this march to war. Without that I think too many Democrats will blink at the wrong time again. What I say now is not based on any inside knowledge, just my sense of the man from watching him closely over three years now. If Clark runs for President he will not back down in confronting any Democrat over their role in enabling another war, because this is really it. This is what Clark believes his calling in life is about. He will do everything he can to stop another disasterous war, much more potentially far reaching than the last one, from breaking out.

Clark has always shown class in public toward other Democrats, so I doubt he would get ugly in his opposition to our Party's soft war enablers; remember he wants Democrats in Congress to end up holding the line against this war together or else Bush will not yield. But Clark will find ways of making his views strongly known, and he understands that your opponents in a Primary contest are members of the same Party, so that is how policy discussions are sharpened, by opposing the wrong ideas of others. I guess I am predicting that Clark will get in their face, with class mostly, but he will clearly be in their face none the less around this. I suspect it will be his core issue in the campaign.

[NCarolinawoman]

28. Just a guess here.

Could it be that he is talking about influencing the individual members of Congress rather than the press.

I know that Walter Jones, the Republican from North Carolina had an epiphany over a year ago at the HASC meeting when Richard Perle and Wes Clark met once again to testify.
Apparently Jones finally learned what PNAC was all about and what their agenda was. Jones emotionally demanded an apology from Perle and accused the rest of the administration of lying about the war. He said he never should have listened to them in the first place and should have believed General Clark back in 2002.

Jones represents a military district in NC and writes letters to each family that has lost a loved one and has the pictures of the fallen marines and soldiers lining his office walls. He has recently introduced a bill to prevent Bush from attacking Iran, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Jim Webb has said his bill will match Jones's bill.

Maxine Waters recently told Chris Mathews that General Clark has been meeting with Congress for some time now and warning them what Bush/Cheney are up to, and Maxine said, "They are on top of the situation".

So I am just saying, if Clark were a declared candidate maybe he wouldn't have as much access?

I'm just guessing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. A lot of us are guessing along the same lines here

Yes, WEs Clark is respected by some Republican members of Congress also. The hearing that you refer to clearly demonstrated it. Most of the Republicans who were there were clear about who got it right and who got it wrong before the War with Iraq. Clark has some influence.

This is part of what I respect so much about Wes Clark. It really isn't about whether he gets to be President or not to him. He said that in simple words at a house meeting I was at with him in the fall. Clark said he only was considering running because he had real world experience that matched up with the dangers and challanges our nation now is facing, otherwise there are many fine Democrats with positive domestic programs he thought could make good Presidents.

Another thing Wes Clark told most crowds he spoke to during the 2006 campaign was that Democrats had to retake Congress to have a chance of stopping Bush from going to war again. He flat out said that. To me that explains why Clark did not camp out in New Hampshire and Iowa the way some other potential Presidential candidates did, helping the same dozen or less candidates a dozen or more times each. Clark went wherever Democrats needed him in order to try to flip Republican seats to Democrats. I think he went to 26 states campaigning for Democrats for Congress. It wasn't about doing what was best for his career ambitions, it was about stopping the war that Clark has been warning was approaching now for over 4 years.

[Adelante]

33. He campaigned for 86 Dems in 2006

I'm pretty sure that's the figure or maybe 84.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. PS. Yup, some keys on my keyboard are starting to stick, lol

[xkenx]

36. I have posted an open letter to Clark for your very reason, but

having said that, I think his timing about entering the race is a tradeoff between current and long-term effectiveness. I favor jumping in and challenging both the Admin. and Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

24. K & R. Now why couldn't I find this thread earlier? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. It's OK. This just had a warning bell to get over there header.

You put substance in your OP. And now there are two worthwhile conversations going on :)

[Adelante]

30. In New York City - February 27

Gen. Clark is lecturing on "War: Past, Present and Future"

92nd Street Y
Kaufmann Concert Hall

http://www.92StreetY.org/

[skyblue]

34. I'm Not A Clarkie, Looking at All candidates. This needs to be told!!

[Adelante]

35. Thank you, skyblue

As you can see you are one of two DUers in this thread to respond who is not a Clark supporter. This critical topic is being buried by the early primary season. We will probably live to regret it though many more will die. And all of DU will wonder how it came to happen. Sad, sad, sad.