Wes Clark, Iran and *#&$&^$%&%!2008

[CarolNYC]

#%*&#%&#^%@#)((#@%*!?!?

I am so tired of seeing people complaining and knocking Wes Clark for not having announced yet whether he’s decided to run or not for ‘08. I see the suppositions that the only reason possible that he’s not jumping in because of his loyalty to the Clintons, the accusations that he’s jerking us around, the bellyaching over why he can’t make a decision, the worry that he’s making the same mistake as last time, the contentions that he knows he can’t win because he was supposedly such a bad campaigner last time, and on and on.

I understand that those who have another candidate, or have an axe to grind, or have some other reason that I in my political naivete can’t fathom have reasons of their own for wanting to push these things...But there are Clarkies too who are expressing much frustration and annoyance.

Wes has told us a number of times recently why he’s delaying his decision. He’s worried about the policy, he’s worried especially about Iran.

He had this to say on the Ed Schultz Show just last week:

Ed: Are gonna jump in this Presidential race?

Wes: I haven’t said I won’t.

Ed: I like that. What does that mean?

Wes: I’ve got a lot of different issues I’m working right now. In particular, I’m really working policy issues and once you get into a race, it’s all about politics. People don’t take seriously what you say, they just they just grade you on your sort of litmus test of where you are on a spectrum of left to right and it’s a horse race coverage. I’m interested in serious issues, uh, not only Iran but also the issues you were talking about that I came in on the end of . I’m interested in what the American family, what the worker, what the middle class family’s going to do five years and ten years and fifteen years from now.....

(snip)

Ed: ....A very unselfish view and I think the point you’re making is that when you announce as a candidate you don’t get taken as seriously cause you’re out there trying to gain people’s favor and some people will say anything to do it.

Wes: Well, you know, that was my perception the last time. When I ran the last time it was very difficult to cut through the politics to get to the points I was trying to make.

(snip)

Ed: When will you be making a decision on your Presidential run?

Wes: I don’t have any timelines on that Um, like I said, I’m working the policies, not the politics.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2262

This is what he told Mark Green on AAR’s “Politically Direct” last month:

Mark Green: Might you run on '08, and might you be (laughs) the Eisenhower for Iraq? By the way, John Soltz told me to ask you that question. (laughs)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think history repeats itself exactly like that. I haven't said I'm not going to run. I, I haven't taken the steps of forming an exploratory committee. I'm very interested right now in trying to help the Democratic Party pick the right policy as it moves forward, and then we'll have to see as the weeks go by as to whether there's more to be done or not.

Mark Green: One more question on that: Obviously candidates, yesterday Senator Dodd, are announcing now, and having been a candidate, every day you're not running y-y-you're not raising funds, which regrettably is a sine qua non of a candidacy. About when might you have to move from the policy focus you're bringing to Iraq and start actually running and raising funds?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, sometime within the next few weeks.

Mark Green: Oh, that soon? Wh-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think you're going to wait six months-

Mark Green: Well, I'm not-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -but I don't have a definite timeline, and, and I haven't made a decision.

Mark Green: Sure.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm still working through this issue, and, and, and weighing it and mostly I'm worried about the policy.

Mark Green: General Clark-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Once a person becomes a candidate, then everything they say becomes viewed through a political lens. I don't want this viewed through a political lens. This should be viewed as a policy issue.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2121

And here’s what he told Rachel Maddow the same day:

Rachel Maddow: General Clark, one final question for you: Any chance you're going to run for President in 2008?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I haven't made any decisions on that. I haven't said I won't, and right now, I'm, I'm really concerned about the policy. And you know, what I learned that last time was that as soon as you start talking about running, then people say, 'Aw well, he's just saying that for political reasons.'

Rachel Maddow: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, I'd like to get these positions out. I'd like the American people and especially your listeners here on Air America to understand these positions. These are not put out there for some political gamesmanship. This is what I believe. I've spent my lifetime in public service. These are, I believe, the right ways to go. Fix the strategy. They've got to find an alternative to a showdown with Iran before it's too late. Otherwise we'll have to follow through with a showdown, and the Iranians won't like it, but we won't like it either. So, don't use force unless you absolutely have to. This administration's marching us towards situation where they could've avoided the use of force, and it, and they may be ultimately then they feel they're forced to use it. They aren't, not yet. So, I don't want to talk about politics. I want to get the policy right.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2118

But yet you still get people complaining like Clark is actually doing us a disservice by trying to work the policy rather than the politics on this, that he has no right to hurt his chances to raise enough money to gain the nomination, that he couldn’t possibly be effective in this debate unless he’s a Presidential candidate....

We know he’s been advising Congress, as Maxine Waters mentioned on Hardball a couple of weeks ago. We know he’s been doing so for quite a while. And, on his most recent Kos diary, he spoke of influencing Republicans as well as Democrats.....

”So if we build enough of a groundswell, if we concentrate not just on Democrats but on Republicans, we CAN sway this policy.”

“I've found non-democrats very concerned. They don't question whether Iran is engaged in Iraq, or whether Iran aims for nuclear weapons. They assume the worst. But they also want a policy that works. And many have begun to doubt the Bush administration.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/22/124931/486

So he is concerned about this upcoming mess with Iran. He is concerned about our future more than his own political interests....and somehow this seems to be interpreted as a negative, a reason to write him off for 2008, to become disgusted with him for not announcing yet, to saddle him with all kinds of ties to the Clintons. Maybe his focus on working the policy, his focus on trying to save the world from exploding by trying to head off this confrontation with Iran, will hurt his chances in 2008 but isn’t his focus still a good thing? Do we really expect so little of our leaders that we don’t even ask that they actually care about what happens to us? We need them to be self-serving panderers or they’re not worthy of our support?

This Iran thing is scary as hell. If you don’t think so, read Sy Hersh’s latest piece in The New Yorker.

And this morning I hear on the radio that they have been stopping Iranian officials in NYC who have been taking pictures of not usually photographed places like mass transit stations and I guess I’m supposed to be afraid and to hate these people, these people who only want to kill us, us the innocent who stand by while two madmen continue on their collision course toward disaster, one of them our lunatic Commander-in-Chief. But what the hey, we have no time for trivialities like that. We’ve got a Presidential election coming up in 2008 and we’ve got upcoming primaries to worry about. We can’t be worrying about stuff that’s happening now for God’s sake! Hell, it's only another war. We're already in the middle of two of them. What's one more?

Jump on Wes’ back for actually trying to stop a war rather than trying to become President if you must, consider him less than worthy of consideration for the '08 nomination for the effort, but please also take a moment to use the tools at www.stopiranwar.com to try to help him head off this disaster before it’s too late. And try to get others to give a moment of their time to forget '08 and worry about '07...just for a moment anyway. I don't know about you guys, but I REALLY don't want the US to attack Iran.

[madmunchie]

1. I for one, hope that he and/or Gore will run once the "frontrunners"

have pretty much destroyed each other - thereby cancelling each other out.

[PresidentObama]

2. Run Wes, Run. Take your time.

Don't wait till it's too late, but keep working on the important issues!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. This is exactly why I like Clark so much.

He's more concerned about his country than about his career. If he thinks he can be more effective NOT running for president, that's what he'll do. Right now his focus is on stopping another disastrous war with Iran, and if he runs he'll have to focus on all that politicking instead. It's also why I like Al Gore, whose work on global warming is clearly more important to him than another presidential run.

Ironic, isn't it, that the people who would be the best presidents are the very ones who aren't all over the news with their pollsters and their focus groups and their all-things-to-all-people blather, but instead are sincerely trying to fix things, putting their country ahead of their own ambition?

[Cameron27]

4. When a man like Wes Clark

sends out urgent warnings about Iran, we'd better listen and take whatever action we can. This isn't a game with him, and I completely believe his reasons for postponing the announcement of his candidacy. (I still think he's going to jump in)

BTW, I can't get the "stopiranwar" link and pic in my sig line with the code they provided. No idea what I'm doing wrong.

Everyone really does need to use the link....go now!....help Wes stop Bush's next disaster.

[yellerpup]

5. Clark is tough enough to stand up to the pressure

He'll run when he's ready and he'll be great--as usual. So what if he hasn't announced yet? The question that comes to me is the same one I kept asking my repubby acquaintences in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Why the rush? K&R! :kick: :kick:

[IndyOp]

6. My admiration for Clark grows. I sincerely hate the fact that

doing the right thing lessens a decent person's chance of being elected - at least it seems that way to me.

I've signed his petition, I call my Congresscritters - I talk to everyone I can about Iran.

We owe him tremendously. I pray his efforts stop the potential horror to come.

[CarolNYC]

7. Sy Hersh

Have you guys read the latest Sy Hersh piece? I think that, along with that report on the radio this morning, really put me over the edge on this thing....Bush is just crazy enough to do this....I don't know if there is anything we can do to stop it but we've got to at least try....

[Jai4WKC08]

28. I've read part of it. It's long, and it's scary.

Like most of what Sy Hersh writes, sadly.

I have a very strong feeling that Hersh and Clark are working together in this. It wouldn't be the first time. Clark stood up for Hersh way back when the former was still in the military, and when the latter was taking a lot of guff for something he'd written. And Hersh in turn has always spoken well of Clark, saying he has "a great streak of integrity" (much to Amy Goodman's consternation when he said it to her lol).

Of course, WKC hasn't been warning us about Iran for quite a few years now. But this isn't the first Hersh has written about what's on the Bush docket for Iran either.

[CarolNYC]

31. Yes, Hersh is one of the heroes here as well.

This from his interview with Blitzer....

HERSH: You know, I have been writing the same story for a year, sort of like I would call up my friends and say, it is Chicken Little, you know, the sky is falling, in the last year.

And now, obviously, it seems to be much more serious. It is much more intent. My own instinct is, Wolf, that this president is not going to leave office without doing something about Iran. And he could always negotiate, it is always on the table. And he keeps on refusing to negotiate. He keeps on saying he will not. And he keeps on talking tough. And maybe we just have to really listen to what he is saying. And I don’t know what can stop him because he is president.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-far-along-iran/

Hopefully people are starting to listen to the "Chicken Littles"....

And, yes, Sy did tell Amy that Wes had a "great streak of integrity"...at which point she promptly changed the subject....

[Jai4WKC08]

44. Geez, what a stupid typo

And too late to edit. Oh well, maybe the thread can use a kick. :kick:

Should have said, "WKC HAS been warning us about Iran..." I think I must have changed it from, "It's not like WKC hasn't been warning us about Iran..." D'oh!

[CarolNYC]

45. Gee, I didn't even notice....

I guess I knew what you meant...I slid right by it.

[Clarkie1]

8. Superb post.

Good work putting all that together.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Thanks for putting things in perspective.

I do think he'd be in a far better position to set things right if he were in the Whitehouse, but I guess that stopping a war in Iran has greater urgency right now.

[Dinger]

10. Clark/Gore or Gore/Clark, Unbeatable,Period

Please, gentlemen, RUNNNNNNNNNNN!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[AX10]

11. If he does not want to run for President because...

it will interfere with his work on foreign policy, than I hope he considers the VP slot or Sec of State.
Gore/Clark?
I'd still like to see Clark on the top of the ticket.

[jen4clark]

12. Right on, CarolNYC!!

Corporate Press has everyone in a tizzy about the '08 election. I am not on their radar and am not effected by their hype. And that's what it is. And General Clark knows this, and that's why in this age of Corporate Press he can't announce and be taken seriously on a matter that is of utmost importance. It's not a popularity contest, it's not American Idol, it's our world at stake and Clark knows this. I honor and respect him so much, and am patient to wait until he knows it's the right time to jump in the horse race. Time on stopping the next war is short -- I remember last year he said Jr. would likely strike Iran this Spring. Time to run for president, otoh, is much longer.

[kaycesf]

16. You're right, so right. Corp Press is going to be our doom.

And I haven't a clue how we can turn this around. 
Unfortunately, so many people in this country have become Hype
Zombies!

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Thank you for finding the words to express this for all of us Carol

I REALLY don't want the U.S. to attack Iran either, and Clark has been warning us for years now that it was coming. I remember how so few took him seriously at first, except for those who have followed him closely enough to know that Calrk really knows what he is talking about, and Clark has been right in his predictions every step of the dangerous way so far.

If Clark loses a chance to run for President because he is doing everything in his power to prevent a war that would dwarf what has happened in Iraq to date after the after effects of an attack on Iran started playing out, Clark will all the more be a hero to his nation and the world. I feel the same way about what Al Gore is doing now also. True leaders have their eyes on something larger than mere personal ambition. I want Clark to become President, and if not him than Gore, but I understand what each of those men are trying to do now and I honor them for it.

[kaycesf]

14. Amen, Carol!

You express exactly how I feel and think about this issue. 
Thank you for putting it into words for all of us.  It's
become almost frightening to me to read these people!  People
need to get out of their bubbles and realize how imperative it
is that we stop this madness.  Thank God Wes Clark does.  But
one man cannot do it alone.  He needs our help!

Again, thank you!

[Donna Zen]

15. A Giant Thank You Carol

The media in this county is running us into the groud. Not person involved with the MSM (except Oberman) gives a damn about our country. Look at how they're covering this race. They do their best to make everything into an argument, and for them it is only about the money. I don't think they want us to have a democracy at all. They keep asking the same assholes the same lame questions.

General Clark serves. That is what his life story represents, and that is what he does. Period.

Thanks again for writing this.

[trillian]

17. Let me add my kudos too

You hit the nail on the head.

Wes has always gotten his priorities straight

During the 2006 campaigns, many of the other 2008 hopefuls were going into States where there was a tight race and raising money for themselves!! Wes refused to do this and was heard to say that it was "doing a disservice" to the men and women running in the Midterms. The man knows instinctively what is right and what is wrong. Whether that will hurt him in the campaign, who knows....but he ain't gonna change. Duty Honor Country.

[Adelante]

19. "raising money for themselves"

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

[Clark2008]

48. They were raising money for themselves instead of merely

working for the candidates in that state?

:eyes:

Kickin' this great thread.

[Eurobabe]

18. You GO CAROL!!

Gotcha covered. K & R'd

[CarolNYC]

20. Thanks for the backup, guys.

Sometimes I think I'm truly not cut out for politics.

It's one thing for people to wonder or suggest that an '08 Presidential run might be hampered by his not jumping in now but when people start dumping on the guy and assigning all kinds of nefarious motives to him because he refuses to put his own interests above ours, that just kills me.

Maybe he'll never be truly successful as a politician if he doesn't adopt the "me-first" attitude that seems so valued but, as much as I want him to be President, I don't want him to have to turn into a typical me-first politician to do so.

Here's hoping he has a safe return home from the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia. I will see him speak tomorrow in Manhattan....

[Cameron27]

24. I hope you can tape it! n/t

[Adelante]

35. seasonedblue

You see this in your sig after the image? < ;br>WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER

Go into your profile and delete that *semi-colon and the space before it* so it's like this: <br>WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER

:hi:

[Cameron27]

49. OMG, do you know how long I've been fiddling with

this!

Thanks for the help :-)

[LSK]

21. nice post, I was not one jumping on Wes, but good to know whats hes doing

[vireo]

22. His son was rather discouraging on Young Turks last week

Wes Clark Jr. claimed that his father would have a difficult time gaining the nomination because a third of Dems would not vote for someone in the military! I surmised from his statement that Gen. Clark was thus disinclined to run.

I find Wes Jr's premise excessively faulty. I'm as anti-military as they come and I would definitely be inclined to vote for Wes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Wes Jr. has been making comments like that for a year now

This is not a new opinion of his. You can consider it already long since factored into whatever deliberation process General Clark has been following. It must be hard for an immediate family member to see someone who they love and respect attacked by blind prejudices, so I think is stings a little harder for him and is harder to shake off. Wes changed a lot of attitudes held by some inside the Democratic party, and he continues to change more daily. If Clark runs he will have much less of an issue with anti-military resistance to his candidacy than he did last time, and last time I still think he would have won had he entered the race early enough to compete inside Iowa.

But we either shall or shall not see regarding this, right now I am working on the campaign to stop war with Iran regardless of what Wes Clark decides regarding a later 08 run. He is right. This is too important to put off.

[arreplant]

26. I agree,

once you know the man, the military background becomes inconsequential.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Except is so far as it would help Wes win in November

but that is a bridge to be crossed if we get there.

[Auntie Bush]

32. Trip trap, trip trap, trip trap trap!

;) He'll have no trouble crossing that bridge when the time comes.

[CarolNYC]

30. Wes Jr....

saw a lot of garbage the last time around. No doubt it was hard for him to see his dad, who he obviously holds in extremely high regard, batted around by the likes of that hack Shelton (who IMHO is not fit to lick the ground Wes spits on)...among others.

I don't doubt he's hoping his dad decides against it....Can't say I'd really blame him...but I'm hoping Wes goes the other way and does jump in.

[Texas_Kat]

40. heh

I think even WesJr would appreciate the poetry in this:

"not fit to lick the ground Wes spits on"

Soda all over the keyboard. Jeeze.... !:rofl:

[CarolNYC]

41. haha!

Glad to make you laugh....I'm kind of cranky today, fighting a sinus headache and some kind of a cold that I hope leaves me by tomorrow night....The thought of what that crud did to Wes, though...even on a good day....:puke:

Of course, Wes may be too much of a gentleman to spit on the ground anyway but I thought it sounded good... ;)

[Adelante]

52. Me, too

I couldn't believe that was our Carol saying that! :D

[Cameron27]

25. Back to recommend

(forgot :blush: )

:kick:

[CarolNYC]

29. Wes will be on O'Reilly tonight...

talking about stopiranwar.com....

Another thing that he does because he cares about this country and OUR future that, of course, he takes shit for....going into the lion's den (Faux News) to fight for us....

[FrenchieCat]

33. Oooh Shit!

Will he be called unpatriotic for this?

[Auntie Bush]

36. Thanks, I'll try to remember to watch...Fox isn't normally on my radar screen.

What time is he on? 8:00? 9:00? 10:00?

[CarolNYC]

37. 8PM ET n/t

[Auntie Bush]

39. Thanks, no wonder I never watch him...on the same time as Countdown.

But it's worth missing KO to see Clark...hopefully "beat the shit" out of BillO.

[CarolNYC]

42. I'm sure the video will be up on securingamerica.com if you miss it n/t

[Seldona]

34. When Wes speaks, I agree we need to listen.

Hope he decides to announce his exploratory committee, but if not I respect that as well. Still believe he is the best person for the job though.

[Lena inRI]

38. My eagerness to have Clark run . . .

does seem FOOLISH, now that you've proven his selfless, greater priority to avert an Iran War. . .thanks for sobering me up, CarolNYC.

BUT

. . .you knew this was coming. . hahahaha. . .I can't stand the thought of 2007-2008 election-season debates without Clark. . .do you seriously expect me to support any of these current Democratic candidates when I know Clark AND Gore are on the sidelines. . .can't and won't. . .don't have the intellectual, logical, or emotional conviction to support the wannabes. . .

Clark has to be true to himself. . .but I, too, believe Aristotle's adage by ONLY HOPING FOR and HOPEFULLY SUPPORTING, sooner than later, the ticket I deem the BEST TEAM FOR 2008. . .

GORE = CLARK 2008

:loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya:

[CarolNYC]

43. I hear ya, Lena....

I'm waiting too....But I understand what both men are doing right now....And I respect them for it.

[bashaw73]

46. Smart waiting game

I am also anxiously awaiting the General's decision to join the race, but I think he must have a good strategy behind it. Now that Hillary and Obama are fighting, it makes sense to wait until people are sick of both of them and are looking for a smart alternative. That's when it'll be time to enter the race. I'm probably like the rest of you who are donating money to the General and waiting for him to announce, and I believe it will happen. It's just painful not having the best candidate in the race right now!

BTW - the General is going to be on Stephanie Miller today at 9:30 ET. Check it out at http://www.stephaniemiller.com/listen/.

[CarolNYC]

47. Hey bashaw!

Welcome to DU...Thanks for the post.

:toast:

[dae]

50. Welcome to DU bashaw73, it's always great to see another

Louisianian. Our beloved state has been in bed with the dark side for too long.

CarolNYC, I am one of those that is impatient but my loyalty is always to
General Clark, I was even called a cultist but one DUer and that's okay.
I don't want a repeat of '04 and you have made some good arguments for patience. I am not going anywhere until Clark says go. Just as you let off steam so did I but we are on the same team.:)
Thanks,
Don

[CarolNYC]

51. Hey dae....

you cultist. :)

I know, it's hard to be patient. Good interview with Clark on Stephanie Miller this morning...They discussed his '08 decision some.

[Adelante]

53. Anything new said? nt

[CarolNYC]

54. Well, I couldn't hear it very well...

as I was listening at work but Steph was begging him to run and I believe he said he's thinking about it every day....She implored him to think harder. He also gave his "I haven't said I won't" answer and that he's worried right now about the issues and that he thought it was very early to be starting the whole primary campaign anyway although he understood that there were strong forces pushing people to do it. Something like that....

Steph said it made her day to know he hadn't ruled it out.

And they also talked of Iran and how sometimes Generals just have to accept the fact that they might end up fired for standing up for what is right....interesting piece there, given his own experience....

Good interview...I imagine the transcript will be up soon....

(Edited to add....Audio file and transcript are actually up now: http://securingamerica.com/node/2276)

[FrenchieCat]

56. Hi and Welcome!

Make yourself at home! :hi:

[Clark2008]

55. I can just hear those debates without him

Every candidate (save Kucinich) falling all over themselves to appear tough and beat their chests and saber-rattle against Iran without knowing the first thing in the world about it.

[dae]

57. To quote the Cowardly lion,"ain't it the truth, ain't it the

truth?":popcorn:

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. "What if he has to debate an elephant?"

"I'd wrap him up in cell-o-phant!"

[FrenchieCat]

58. Doing the kick.....

:kick:

[FrenchieCat]

59. Doing the kick.....

:kick:

[LittleClarkie]

60. He and Kerry remind me of each other

Both more concerned with what needs to get done than in political ambition.

In Clark's case, I hope it works as an anti-campaign campaign. I hope for the sake of his supporters that he does enter eventually. I'd hate to see them in tears like I was.

But til then:

http://www.setadeadline.com

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

[Adelante]

61. You brought tears to my eyes, LC

I think an anti-campaign campaign may what there is for the majority of candidates, the way things stand now with the election system so fucked. We'll see.

[bashaw73]

62. Thanks for the welcome!

I'm glad to be talking about another Clark run. I was very active in his '04 campaign, and I'm looking forward to working for the General in '08. Just waiting for the marching orders!

I loved the Stephanie Miller interview, and am glad that she appears to be a Clark supporter. We need someone with his military and diplomatic skills. He's exactly what we need right now to start to get us out of the nightmare Bush and his handlers led us into. But how much longer do we have to wait?!?!? I think we all know he's going to announce sometime, but hopefully not too late.

I'm just not thrilled with any of the announced candidates, especially Hillary and Obama. Both are admirable, but, in my opinion, not what we need to get us to where we need to be. Hillary's too polarizing, and Obama is too inexperienced. John Edwards? Don't think so - also, he'd change the presidential theme from "Hail to the Chief" to the Three's Company theme (kinda looks like John Ritter). Chris Dodd is a good man and an honest politician, but I don't think he has the firepower needed to win the nomination or the general election (and I'm saying this as a big fan of his!). Joe Biden had his chance in the '80s. The rest are not strong enough. That just leaves General Clark.

[CarolNYC]

63. New Hampshire Friday

This account of Wes' appearance in NH on Friday made me think of this thread...

For those who wonder what effect General Clark can have if he's not a Presidential candidate:

Just before he concluded his talk, he said, "I'm not a candidate for President, but I haven't said I won't run". He asked for questions and I couldn't help but be the first to ask, "Wes, is there any chance during the next 3 months you will declare your candidacy?" Everybody chuckled knowing I had supported Wes in 2004. He said no. He told the room that when you're a candidate, they discount your views on everything. He was very happy to discuss policy with high level people because they took him seriously. He knew that would change the minute he declared. I believe he wants his views to be heard loud and clear pertaining to Iran and Iraq NOW and for him to declare would remove him from the lists of those respected individuals whom the Democratics continually call upon for their policy views and opinions. And this is too critical a time to not hear his opinions. I honestly believe he can help effect policy by being in the private sector right now but speaking up on the issues that he is passionate about.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11301

[Hawkowl]

64. First choice

behind Al Gore. If Gore doesn't get in Clark has as good as shot as any.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. What I want to know is why there were never any signs of a Clark campaign OR an Iran war.

And yet we continue to discuss both as if they are likely to happen...

...however disastrous they might be for Republicans politically (which
is exactly why neither event is likely to occur)

it just doesn't look like EITHER Iran OR Clark is a real possibility anymore.

It is, in Shakespeare's words, a "foregone conclusion".

(an idiom that meant "a fate successfully avoided" when Shakespeare coined it.)

[Adelante]

66. Read up

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh?page=1

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. All of which was written over a month ago about events Hersh predicted would happen June 6 2006.

Alot has changed since then. For one thing, organizationally speaking, Cheney is isolated now. Gates opposes him on war with Iran. Condi is pushing sanctions and months/years of diplomatic pressure. The carriers
we were supposed to be worried about didn't arrive, and when Bush DID get two carriers into position, it was to surge troops into Iraq -- a mere excuse for putting diplomatic pressure on Iran by sabre-rattling, using the surge as a chest-beating exercise. The half-hearted attempts at building a casus belli bombed. Half-hearted because no one has any incentive to follow Cheney's orders on this. The Rapture-ready air-war proponents have their hands tied by the lack of anything new on the ground. Status quo favors Iran. The generals said repeatedly they would resign if it happened -- and they aren't holding their breath for it to happen. One man cannot force a bureaucracy to turn on a dime and force 1000s of people to jump off a cliff on the basis of nothing and no one, arguments nobody's heard or believes in, about a "threat" everyone's acknowledged and gotten used to, especially when that man is at war with the President over the Libby fallout, and his job is at risk -- a risk no greater or less than the risk of Iran war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Let's skip to what is most important right now

I have no idea how you can come to the conclusion that military conflict with Iran is not a real possibilty anymore. Not only is the Bush Administration still hiring leading neocons for key positions, but there are efforts within the Democratic Party also to keep war with Iran a ready option.

This story is just today's example of that:

"Pro-Israel Lobbyists Push to Eliminate Anti-Iran War Language from Pelosi Iraq Bill"
By M.J. Rosenberg
at TPM Cafe
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/09/pro_israel_lobbyists_push_to_eliminate_anti_iran_war_language_from_pelosi_iraq_bill

Rosemberg reposts this story with added commentary of his own:

CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/09/pro_israel_lobbyists_push_to_eliminate_anti_iran_war_language_from_pelosi_iraq_bill

"Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.

The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.

The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers."

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Which just shows the weakness of those who failed to engineer an Iran war

They tried to go back to the well too many times.

War with Iran is, as Shakespeare put it, a "foregone conclusion".

Theory of Relativity. By trying to position ourselves for war,
they forced us to observe their act of repeating ridiculous claims
and through the act of observation, the outcome was changed.

It was changed the day Hersh issued an article (essentially a
huge correction, but also a glorious fact) describing how the
military averted an Iran war in 05 - 06...

after war failed to materialize in June 06 as Hersh assured us it would.

Again, the military prevented Iran war from happening in 06.
Hersh said so. They stonewalled it. What's changed since then?

Bureaucracies are capable of revolutionary feats of inertia when up
against reactionary forces of suicide. That's why the world didn't
end in 1963. That's why the German army stopped following Hitler's
orders and started deserting towards the end. It is, in fact, why
people assumed Saddam had weapons -- because his advisors would
"keep talking" about the subject, humoring his megalomania while
secretly doing nothing. Maintain the status quo.

It's the small efficient organizations that you have to watch out for.

Fortunately, Bush has mismanaged the secret services so badly that none of his fascist cronies are competent enough to provoke us into war.

They BARELY skated by on a tissue of bullshit last time. We really weant into Iraq because of a post-911 culture of fear, "we must trust the President" mentality, mass hysteria, the actual arguments were irrelevant. That atmosphere is gone.

I was worried about Iran war in 06. That's when he, a man who uses his unpredictable ignorance as a strategic tool, had the advantage of surprise. Bush isn't a chess player... he isn't waiting until the issue has been talked to death to "spring his trap".

The issue of war with Iran can, is, or has been, in fact, talked to death -- quite literally.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. You present your opinion well but

all that you present is your opinion, which at root is based on what you think Bush and Cheney are capable of doing and what they are not capable of doing. Opinions are valuable, but they differ, and even wise men disagree. Meanwhile there are plenty of good and sound thinkers who reach different conclusions than you, many of whom have access to information that you do not have. I can present you with a sound opinion as to why it is not too late for Wes Clark to run for President and win in 2008, and I can back that with solid reasoning, but I suspect you would scoff at that opinion, which would be your right since after all it would still only be an opinion. No matter how sound the logic I base it on would be, you could and would I am sure present contrary logic. Such is the nature of opinions.

The matter of whether or not the United States, or Israel with strong American backing, attacks Iran is not in the least bit inconsequnetial. It is not as if we were discussing whether the New York Mets will or will not win the National League pennant in 2007. Being wrong about the Mets matters little, being wrong about an attack on Iran has staggering implications

Quite recently there was strong evidence that the military opposed Bush's surge policy in Iraq, so Bush kept looking around until he found some officers inside the military who were willing to embrace it and those are the ones he promoted, others were kicked upstairs or rotated out of his way. Additional troops have been sent to Iraq. I would suppose that six months ago, or whenever it was that the Iraq Study Group was just starting its deliberations, virtually no one would have predicted that the Bush Administration would eventually respond to its recommendations by increasing American troop strength inside Iraq, yourself included.

The threat of war with Iran is both short term and intermediate term. As the story I linked to above indicates, there are pressures within the Democratic Party also that are setting up a conflict with Iran as perhaps inevitable, even if that is not seen as desirable. If you read what General Clark is saying, he states that Iran's nuclear program continues to move forward while the American political establishment continues to stay entrenched in a policy that says under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to go nuclear. That includes both Democrats and Republicans. Clark is stating that we can not allow the Bush Administration to run out the clock on it's time in office without strong bipartisan domestic pressure forcing it to inititate meaningful diplomacy with Iran now while the crisis point has not yet been crossed where the U.S. must either attack Iran or concede that they have achieved nuclear capabilities.

In order for a diplomatic initiative to succeed the American public must be clearly on record "stating" that we do not want armed conflict with Iran. The view of the public has not been expressed loudly on this subject I am afraid. A poll would probably support diplomacy of course, but there is not evident sense of urgency being expressed about it that our political class can see yet. But they will see the opposite in person this weekend, as Roseberg wrote:

"It is worth noting that the AIPAC conference begins in Washington this weekend with thousands of citizen lobbyists being deployed to Capitol Hill to deliver the message that Iran must be dealt with, one way or another."

As reported, they are pressuring Pelosi to REMOVE provisions of legislation that would force Congressional approval of any attack on Iran.

So I can choose to be relieved by your carefully expressed opinion above and do nothing to prevent war with Iran, because, hey, it ain't gonna happen, or I can take General Clark's warnings seriously. Sorry, nothing against you personally, but I am going with the latter. The primary reason why Wes Clark did not launch a Presidential campaign already is due to his concern about violence spreading in the Middle East and his efforts to prevent that. He takes the threat very seriously. It was General Clark, not you, who just returned from a weekend conference in Saudi Arabia meeting with leaders in that region. It is General Clark, not you, who has inside sources in the Pentagon.

Let's say for a second that you are right in so far as the odds not favoring an American attack on Iran this year. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me. That's like saying there's only a 30% chance of rain for tomorrow so let's continue planning to go hiking on Sunday. What's the worst that can happen one could say? We get a little wet.

If you are wrong, and Bush does send bombers into Iran, what's the worst that can happen? I think everyone should answer that question for themselves.

[Telly Savalas]

71. Yes. God fucking forbid we taint the electoral process with the discussion of policy.