I just realized a significant difference between Edwards and Clark re: Iran [View All]

[Clarkie1]

First, I applaud Edwards for moving more towards diplomacy, however I don't believe his approach would be entirely the right one. First, Edwards today:

"I wouldn't give away anything until it became clear what the intent of Iran was, that they've given up any nuclear ambition, that they would no longer sponsor Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations," Edwards told ABC News, in an interview to be broadcast on "Nightline" Monday night. "So there would be huge jumps and these things would all have to be verifiable. We'd have to be certain that they were occurring in order to get to that stage. But I think we would consider all of our relations on the table."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2905550&page=1


Now, compare that to what Clark said back in December, 2006:

Diane Rehm: So, you would take Iran's proposed or purported development of nuclear weapons off the table?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I'd say that's one of the things we're going to talk about directly.

Diane Rehm: But would you talk about that first?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'd talk first about-

Diane Rehm: Would that be a precondition?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I'd go in with a set of principles that we agree, in the region, that we want for the region that borders should be respected, security needs should be respected, that the Iraqi people should have a right to determine their own future, and have that dialog with Iraqi and Syrian and Turkish leaders - all the people who are effected by it-

Diane Rehm: Gen-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -and see what comes from it.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

See the difference? It's huge.