I just realized a significant difference between Edwards and Clark re: Iran

[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.

[AtomicKitten]

1. General Clark is the consummate diplomat

... that would make sure the world doesn't explode.

[Clarkie1]

2. Indeed he is.

:hi:

[suziedemocrat]

8. About the Iran thing .... Maybe I'm stupid ....but ...

1) If another country wants to use Nuclear Power, can we stop them from doing that because the same technology can be used for bombs?

2) How can we tell another country THEY can't have nuclear weapons but WE can?

I know, I know....they're nuts so they can't be trusted with nuclear technology. But you could argue that the USA is nuts too. It just seems so hypocritical to me.

[many a good man]

12. Depends if they've signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Signatories are granted the right to peacefully pursue nuclear power and are entered into a series of international conventions that govern its spread in exchange for disavowing the pursuit of weapons.

Iran has signed the NPT so they are bound to limit it to energy, not bombs, and accept inspection and the range of other requirements.

OTOH, the White House has been actively trying to subvert the NPT, most noticeably last year when it signed an agreement with India, a non-signer, that was completely outside the NPT.

[Clarkie1]

3. The main differences I see are setting preconditions and addressing the security needs of the region

Not just Iran in isolation. There seems to be a difference in emphasis, at the very least. Anyone else care to comment? I'd like to here from Edwards supporters, as they are more familiar with his positions, reasoning, and theoretical approach to diplomacy than I.

[tblue]

4. Very astute, Clarkie1! Clark gets the big picture, & he could hit the ground running if he became

our next president. Nobody is more qualified and has more bona fides. He was the very first person I heard say there is no military solution to Iraq, you have to bring in the neighboring states and broker a peace with diplomacy. Now, all the Dem candidates say it. The depth and breadth of his knowledge is really unparalleled. I've seen him in person probably 10 times, and he can field ANY question at length. Kinda like Clinton used to, but with much more gravitas.

This pic is for you:

[FrenchieCat]

5. Nice Photo!

He looked and sounded well on O'Reilly today.....

and he's being interviewed by Amy Goodman tomorrow in New York. That should be interesting, considering Amy Goodman is against all wars and Wes Clark is a retired General.

[suziedemocrat]

9. But it's the military people who ARE against war. They've seen first hand how awful it is.

It's the college cheerleaders who have never seen combat and romanticize war that we have to be afraid of.

[Clark2008]

11. Do you think Amy finally realizes that Wes isn't a war criminal?

My biggest beef about Democracy Now is how it's always so anti-military. It lumps the military in one foul pile instead of addressing individual situations.

I hate unfounded bias of any kind and that's DN's shortcomings as a serious news organization.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

6. "Our president misled us into war... We're in a mess we didn't have to be in" K&R

Wesley clark is a true hero,watch this video on you tube if you can: Wes Clark American son http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKchifzp2Po General Wesley K. Clark: middle-class roots, graduated first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar. Decorated for valor in Vietnam, trained himself to walk without a limp so he could continue his military service after serious wounds. Rose to rank of four-star general, while maintaining a reputation for candor and speaking his mind. Fought to ensure education and health care for troops under his command. Diplomacy at the highest levels, as negotiator in Bosnia peace talks. As Supreme NATO Commanded, led and maintained international coalition to stop terror campaign in Kosovo. Married for 38 years to Gert. One child (son Wes Jr.) Two grandchildren "Our president misled us into war. ... We're in a mess we didn't have to be in. We're in a mess that is costing the lives of our soldiers almost daily."

On the Issues - Wesley Clark issue positions and quotes http://senate.ontheissues.org/Wesley_Clark.htm :kick:

[chknltl]

7. I have a question about Clark...where better to ask it.....

I am a fellow DUer, not a Republican plant or a freeper...nor am I trying to tear down a candidate.
I am not seeking to flame nor do I ask for any back. I have not posted even one negative comment on any thread about any candidate.

That said I am afraid to ask my question...sucks doesn't it. bush just loves it when America is divided... ...divide and conquer.... ....divide and CONQUER... ...DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!!

I do NOT want to be divided from ANY of my fellow DUers. I just want to ask a question because I ACTUALLY SEEK AN ANSWER, not because I want to see a Dem candidate torn down. I get much of my news here in the DU. This place is where much of my worldview is formed. (As is Truthout, Media Matters, Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes)

OK OK I hope you get the picture, so I'll get on with it:

I have heard, (here in DU), that General Clark has views about the use of Depleted Uranium which are enough to place him on the bottom of my list for support. I have STRONG feelings about this material. I have NO SYMPATHY for anyone who glosses over or condones it's use. From what I have heard. Gen. Clark has condoned it's use. IS THIS TRUE? Can anyone here tell me what General Clark's current views are on Americas use, past and/or present, of Depleted Uranium munitions?
Thank you
c

[dogman]

13. It's not that I think your question might be disingenuous, but

I wonder if you've asked this question of any of the other candidates supporters at DU? In the past Clark has stated that the research he had seen did not show DU needed to to be banned but he was open to further evidence. There is a bit of hysteria about the use of DU. Weapons kill, that is a given. There are nuclear weapons that are in the arsenals of many countries. The decision to use various weapons is based on a number of criteria. Effectiveness, cost, risks, and so forth. What are the effects of heavy concentrations of lead. Lead has been banned in many places for use in hunting waterfowl because of the long term detriment to the animals consuming spent shot. I would like to see all weapons banned, but I would not want to disarm unilaterally.

[chknltl]

19. No, I have not asked other DU candidate supporters

This is because I was a Clark supporter prior to be being shown this:
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html

I disagree over the "hysteria". The word conjures up War Of The Worlds style panic over nothing for me. I support Senator Jim McDermott's views on the depleted uranium issue. He understands that this material is extremely hazardous and meets the criteria for a WMD. The fact that our government has not signed on to this notion of it being a WMD changes absolutely nothing to the horrors it's use has contributed to not only the civilians who become exposed but to our own troops as well!

I am a Viet Nam Era vet. In the same way I could not support a candidate who claimed the Agent Orange phenomenon was a non issue I can not show my support for a candidate who makes similar claims about Depleted Uranium these days. Senator McDermott is fighting our government on our veterans behalf over the Depleted Uranium issue. I support him in this. For me to show support for anyone who makes the claims listed in that link I was shown is 100% counter productive. I honestly hope Wesley Clark has indeed revisited this issue...perhaps even spoken to Senator McDermott about it. This is why I posted my question.... I seek to learn his current views here.

That said, Dennis Kuccinich has said that one of our priorities is reparations and cleanup to the country of Iraq... this statement more than any caught my ear. Your point of asking if I have asked any of my fellow DUers this question is well taken...I thank you for this as it makes me think a little deeper here: Why not ask the candidate himself? I'll be sending my question off to General Clark and Dennis Kucinich. I like both of these guys. It would be best getting a direct answer as opposed to stirring stuff up here...something I am desperately trying NOT to do. It will also alert both these men that folks ARE thinking about this issue.

Thank you for answering me instead of flaming me. Honest discussion is what DU should be about.
:pals:

[Donna Zen]

22. An honest question

And as been pointed out: an honest question for all candidates. These munitions are voted on. Several of the candidates pride themselves on listing the Armed Services Committee on their resume. I could point out that their relationship with the military is confined to a rather superficial knowledge, but that is not among my points.

Why do we only ask Wes Clark questions about the military? If anyone running is known to possess the knowledge and skill to deal with military issues, it is Clark. And yet, we never ask questions--in depth questions--of the others about their readiness to assume the role of CiC. Actually, these candidates would prefer to skirt any questions about the Pentagon: it is a complex place, and with Dems. having to shoulder the burden of being soft on defense, a very dangerous area of questioning for them. So if you want to ask about DU or any other military question, then you should start with the Dems with no military experience.

However, for me, any of these strong doubts about our country's current military policies (and know that I agree with you) is one of the reasons that puts Clark first on my list. The Pentagon spends over half of our money, and many problems exist within its walls. Clark can and will take them on when needed, and he is the only one that can do that.

Wes Clark loves those troops like his own family. If the data can prove the fears about DU, the stuff would be gone before the ink dried on the spread sheet. I would bet on that. Not only that, but the American people would believe him, and no republican would not dare say that Wes Clark was soft on defense.

So if this bothers you as it bothers me, then I would hope that you can think hard to see the upside down nature of this beast. The people you are not asking about this, who you let off the hook, can't do anything about it anyway. Clark, who can go to the Pentagon, gets held to a standard that other candidates don't.

If it is any solace, Eric Massa told me that DU is being phased out.

[chknltl]

23. Well I could ask those other guys too... you know what...

I shall. I have not made up my mind over any candidate so far...I lean a bit to Dennis Kucinich because I have heard him say we need to repair the damage we have done to Iraq...this is VERY important to me. Cleaning up the uranium oxide contaminating much of Iraq needs to be a top item on any list of clean-up imho.

The civility of those who have responded here encourages me to post my own thread on the topic....
perhaps I have underestimated my fellow DUers, perhaps when questions are posed honestly, without malice, perhaps I can count on my fellow Duers to contribute with their knowledge and thoughts in kind back.

The issue of Iraqi clean up is priority one for me...yes our own country is broke and fixing it IS important... yet we are not dieing at a rate of perhaps 100 per day over here... for me cleaning up Iraq is triage on a planetary scale. We can work on both but so far this issue is all but ignored here.

I will send my questions and concerns to each nominee... (including Al Gore if possible)

[Donna Zen]

24. Thanks

It should be noted that Wes Clark has said that he wants to get rid of land mines and nukes. Well, that's a start.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. The last time I heard Clark speak about du was in late 2003

It was during his campaign and he was asked about it. I don't remember his exact words, but as I recall, he said that his understanding of the science was that depleted uranium is not more harmful than other weapons, but that if there is new data to show different, he would revisit the issue.

I have a question for you, tho. If you "have no sympathy for anyone who glosses over or condones it's use," who do you support for 2008? Can't be any of the senators, because they have ALL voted to fund du as part of the military arsenal. Has any of the candidates taken any kind of stand or made any statement against DU? If so, I haven't heard it.

[chknltl]

20. I was unaware that all the candidates did this!

It deeply saddens me that anyone would show such support for the use of this weapon.
I AM aware that Senator Jim McDermott has been fighting hard over the depleted uranium issue. His background as a medical doctor and his extensive research into this material has caused him to be quite outspoken against it. I first learned of it from him in a speech he gave during the run-up to this fiasco of a war. Since then he has sponsored and cosponsored many bills in regards to depleted uranium. (His latest one wants to track all vets who may have been exposed)

Sadly Senator McDermott is not running for President. As to whom do I support? Well to be honest I have not made up my mind here...Kuccinich has spoken briefly about reparations to Iraq, that is something I support, after-all "We Broke It We Own It"! That sounds fair and fixing what we did to that country IS very important to me and should be so for all Americans imo. That said, I am one of those "anybody but bush" kind of voters. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who he or she may be when it gets down to it.

While responding to the first of my fellow DUers to answere my question above, I left this link as to what my possible issue is with General Clark...

http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2001_spring/little_risk.html

I am aware that it is quite old, (spring '01) and he may actually have studied the newer data in regards to this issue. It is even quite possible that the fellow DUer who pointed this link out to me is a CATO institute plant for all I know...I am reluctant to repost it here...(twice now)....but it is important to me for my fellow DUers to see that I am not making stuff up in order to cause any harm to a candidate.

I also intend to e-mail his campaign folks and voice my concern here as opposed to stirrin stuff up among my fellow DUers. It is my sincere hope that Wesley Clark has revisited this issue, I genuinely like him and feel that he would make a strong President. I was so thrilled when he came with Senator Kerry to my home town and addressed us a a couple of years ago! I was one of those who felt he would have made a great running mate to Kerry, (I didn't mind Edwards either though).
But if he still asserts that the depleted uranium issue is a non issue....well that for me is entirely another matter indeed.

Thanks for responding to my question!

[NV1962]

18. Here's the key for you

This is what he answered in response to a direct question on the issue:

"I will use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force"

And that sums it up.

You can read it the article that is pitched as a critical look at the issue, here.

Compare that with the decision to deploy chemically active munitions -- white phosphorous no less -- on targets in a residential area, that was very well-known to have civilians living there, in Falluja.

DU isn't used as a chemically active ingredient, but as a kinetic agent in armor piercing munitions by practically all armed forces of NATO member nations. The only proven noxious side effect of DU is in the explosion gases; inhaling vaporized DU is definitely not good for your health. But that's rather academic, as the impact wave (concussion) of the explosion is far, far more likely to kill you - as is the sheer force of impact of the munition coming at you at several thousand FPS.

Until it's proven that DU as used legally in armor piercing munition has significant and measurable toxic effects, I'm not impressed with the criticism of that use of DU-containing cores of armor piercing munition.

I'm far, far more concerned with the (threat of) use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Especially in civilian / residential areas.

[chknltl]

21. There are a few who feel that Global Warming is a non-issue also

I am not trying to flame you...I thank you for the link, it is quite insightful into the public mind of General Clark. I like this man, always have and I feel that he can lead our country just fine. He strikes me as a man of strong personal integrity. I do not for one minute believe that he is shilling for any special interest group, especially the nuclear waste/munitions industry.

I am quite aware of the tactical function depleted uranium provides. That said, I am strongly against it's use. There is plenty of evidence out there that it qualifies as a WMD in that the uranium oxide particles released from its use becomes an environmental hazard...one which indeed can maim and kill over time. You have access to the same online data I have. Sure there are eggheads on both sides of this issue posting their studies. Read as many as you like then ask yourself this quite selfish question: Am I confident enough from my own research here to allow a loved one to enter an area with known depleted uranium contaminates regardless of how long ago those contaminates were deposited?" I argue that you would not do such a thing... I further argue that no sane human with access to the data would either....unless they just decided to ignore it completely!

Those who live in and around the contaminated sites do not get the opportunity to review this data as you and I do. They get NO CHOICE. That in itself should be a crime...that is one reason WMD use should be a crime. The fact that the perpetrators of the crime choose to claim that their crime is a non-issue, that there was no legalities broken changes nothing for the victims of the crime. What if bush was able to pass a law that rape was no longer a crime? Just because it is legal does this qualify it as anything less than what it really is? Especially to the victim?

You sound like a vet. I am also a vet. In my sig line there is a link to beyond treason.com which offers up a dvd which details the nightmare our use of depleted uranium munitions has unleashed.
(It also speaks extensively about 3 other causes for PTSD and it gives a great background into each)
The DVD is free to all vets.

I titled this post "There are a few who feel that Global Warming is a non-issue as well" for a reason...not to flame you, (it sounds like it though, I apologize for that). I wrote that because I wish to point out something else. Years ago there were some who were alarmed about Global Warming and then there were those who felt it was not a problem whatsoever. As more and more studies came out the alarm grew. There are now those currently being affected by this phenomenon. In essence the unwilling victims. They may or may not care for the debates one way or the other, they just know that their lives are adversely affected. More and more folks are lining up on the side of those eggheads who say that Global Warming is man made and adversely affecting our environment. This too is happening with the depleted uranium issue. As more and more studies come out pointing to the devastation the use of such munition has caused, as more and more of the victims become sickened and in many cases re-expose their loved ones, public opinion grows. It will eventually grow to outrage and disgust as it should be.

There are those who claim Global Warming is a myth. It is easy to see that those folks either shill for those who stand to continue gaining financially from these assertions or they are folks who choose to be mislead by those leaders they trust. I believe this to be so again with the depleted uranium issue. I join and support my states Senator Jim McDermott here... he is not one to waste our time on further inaction while the "research" is underway. He sees the foolhardiness in that...he sees that this is exactly what the profiteers prefer we do, sit back and wait. Senator McDermott is not sitting back and waiting...nor am I. I urge you to join us and speak out against the use of this WMD my fellow DUer...that is for you to decide though. For me I am not ashamed to have the strong feelings I have against this nightmare. I would like to see one day those who profited from this particular WMD's use be the ones made to clean it up. I also fell that Wesley Clark may change his oppinion on it as well , that is if he has not already. (Which is why I asked in the first place). He is a smart man and more importantly a man of integrity, one who cared for his troops. I can not believe that he still stands behind the use of depleted uranium munitions...well I sincerely hope not...

thank you for responding to my question

[Clarkie1]

28. Delete. nt

[Clark2008]

10. Clark knows what he's talking about and Edwards changes

his mind to fit political whims?

That's the biggest difference I see. :hi:

[venable]

15. Edwards is talking about what we 'give up', NOT preconditions for talking.

at least that what the quoted material says.

so ask Clark what we 'give up' - my guess is he wouldn't answer, as there is no reason to speculate on it at this point.

if he answered, then we could compare these two.

[Auntie Bush]

16. The significant difference is......

Clark KNOWS what he's talking about.

[Adelante]

17. Clark has also spoken of co-existence

In the event Iran does develop nuclear weapons. Actually, he has spoken volumes and volumes on Iran for years.

Edit:

There are several pages of Clark's statements on Iran at this site and even at that is not a complete collection:

http://clarkme.wordpress.com/tag/iran/

[Capn Sunshine]

25. I know a HUGE difference between Edwards and Clark

Edwards is running for President.

[FrenchieCat]

26. That's a big one!

You are correct!

[Forkboy]

27. You and your details!

:spank: